9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (12) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to enable all persons passing on the road and bystanders to have a clear perspective of the goods displayed for sale inside. The admission to the Dome was free and unrestricted during the morning hours between 9 A.M. and 12 noon. According to the applicants, it was however restricted in the evening hours from 4 P.M. to 9 P.M. to bona fide purchasers. The persons who were minded to go to the Dome in the evening were required to obtain a token of the value of ₹ 2/-. This amount was later on adjusted towards the price of cloth purchased by the person visiting the Dome. The token could thus be exchanged for ₹ 2/- worth of cloth fabrics inside the Dome. In order to attract a large number of visitors and promote the sales of their fabrics, the petitioners used to arrange every evening between 4 P.M. and 9 P.M. a display of the fabrics ..... by mannequins who used to wear and show off Saries, costumes etc. manufactured by the Mills. The petitioners averred that this display by mannequins was visible to all persons standing outside and was not restricted to buyers inside the Dome. 3. On 24th October, 1960, the petitioners informed the District Excise Officer, Jabalpur of thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with the management of the show for their office and audit record. This ticket was to be shown at the entrance for allowing the admission inside the dome, and without the production of the ticket admission inside was not allowed". In paragraph-3 of the return, it has been further stated : "The display and the performance inside was an entertainment, for the fashionable ladies and gentlemen of the towns who were rather attracted more towards the show than towards the purchase of cloth. As a well experienced businessman the petitioners had contrived this good contrivance by which the fashion show was not allowed to the visitors free of charge. Admission fee was itself sufficiently high and could be afforded by only those who are capable purchasers also. In heavy purchases the adjustment of ₹ 2/- had no significant proportion. The fact that the show may be visible to some extent to passers by on the road is irrelevant". The respondents, therefore, say that under the scheme employed by the petitioners for the display and exhibition of their goods the levy of entertainments duty under the Act was justified. 4-A. The question as to the liability of the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preted in a statute as 'including', the comprehensive sense is not to be taken as strictly defining what the meaning of the word must be under all circumstances but merely as declaring what tilings should be comprehended within the terms where the circumstances require that they should. 6. The natural import of the term 'entertainment' is amusement and gratification or some sort. The term connotes something in the nature of an organised entertainment. This is evident from the fact that the Act was enacted to provide for the levy of a duty in respect of admission to theatres, cinemas and other places of public entertainment. Therefore an entertainment to come within the definition of Section 2 (b) and of the provisions of the Act must be some exhibition, performance, amusement, game or sport for the purpose of entertainment, that is, for affording some sort of amusement and gratification to those who see or hear it. In the present case, it is impossible to say on the agreed facts that there is any exhibition, performance, amusement, game or sport which is an integral component factor attracting the visitors to the Calico Dome. In the return, much emphasis was laid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrangement inside the Dome for having a good view of the display, or again on the fact that "many fashionable ladies and gentlemen of the town were attracted more towards the show than towards the purchase of cloth". Many of them might have gone to the place merely for the purpose of watching the display and seeing something which they had not seen before. But the fact that these people went out of curiosity and novelty did not make the exhibition of cloth or the display by mannequins inside the Dome an entertainment, which otherwise was not an entertainment. 8. The word "exhibition" occurring in the definition of "entertainment" in Section 2 (b) must take its colour from the natural import of the term 'entertainment'. If certain goods are exposed to view for the purpose of sale, there is no doubt an exhibition of goods in the sense of "showing". But that is not any entertainment. The exhibition for sale of the fabrics themselves in elegant surroundings under a canopy put up. by the petitioners did not afford any gratification, diversion or amusement. It was no more than a display of cloth and apparels in a well-decorated shop. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hours was not a payment for admission to the Dome, much less a payment for admission to a place in which entertainment was held. 10. In deciding this matter, we have not bad the advantage of the guidance and authority of any decision of this Court or of other High Courts. But Shri Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, referred us to Lyons and Co. v. Fox, 1919-1 KB 11. Cordiner v. Stockham, (1920) 1 KB 104, Attorney-Genera] v. Arts Theatre Club of London, 1932 All ER 663 (sic)0 and Attorney-General v. London Casino. Ltd., 1987-3 All ER 858. None of these cases is directly in point, though one of them viz. 1919-1 KB 11 (supra) is of some use. The general principles laid down in the judgments of Darling, Lawrence, and Bailhache JJ. favour the view we have taken. That was a case of Trocadero Restaurant, a well known place in London, where during tea or dinner a concert was provided. The public were not admitted to the Restaurant unless they were about to take meals, and on the implied terms that they would make payments to the proprietors at the prices fixed by them. No charge was made in any form except for the meals, which was served both at a fixed price and also a l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... existed for years. It is not a new one. But we have not been able to find any English case where a mannequie parade held independently or as a part of an exhibition of fabrics, dresses etc. was held to be an entertainment in respect of which duty was payable under the Act of 1916.
12. For all these reasons, our conclusion is that the Calico Dome erected by the petitioners was not a place in which any entertainment within the provisions of the Act was held and no entertainments duty under the Act was payable by the petitioners. The result is that this petition is allowed. The order of the District Excise Officer, Jabalpur, contained in Annexure-III to the petition calling upon the petitioners to pay 'entertainments duty in quashed, and the opponents, are restrained from enforcing the provisions of the C. P. and Berar Entertainments Duty Act, 1936, against the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled to the refund of the amount already collected from them and the amount be refunded to them. The petitioners shall get costs of this petition. Counsel's feo is fixed at ₹ 200/-. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be paid to the petitioners. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
