9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) or, as the case may be, sub-section (2) of Section 3 would be payable. In respect of the first part of sub-clause (ii) of Section 3(5)(a) of the Act, there can possibly be no dispute as the entertainment duty is 50% of 15% leviable under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. The argument that when a lumpsum amount is paid as a right of admission for all rides and games, then it becomes admission to series of entertainment, is not tenable. The writ petitioners issue one ticket including one or more rides or games situated in one compound. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that for every ride or game, it is charging separately - The admission to entertainment in terms of Section 2(d) of the Act includes all rides and games which are provided by the service provider. Once an admission ticket is granted, it is not in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act but only in terms of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. Section 3(2) of the Act has no applicability for a visitor to an amusement park who does not fall in any of the four categories mentioned in Section 3(2) of the Act. Since, the activities undertaken by the writ petitioners are not failing part of Section 3(2) of the Act, therefore, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 7th January, 1995, the writ petitioners were informed that they would be required to pay duty @7.5% and not @3.75%. The writ petitioners challenged such demand by way of writ petition. The said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. 4. The State sought to recover the entertainment duty @7.5% in respect of entry to the amusement park for the period from 16th September, 1994 to 24th December, 1994 and @15% from 25th December, 1994. The writ petitioners paid the duty under protest. In a writ petition challenging the provisions of the Act, the writ petitioners sought refund of the duty paid. 5. The High Court found that the following questions arose for consideration: i. Rate of entertainment duty payable by the Petitioners for a period from 16th September, 1994 to 24th December, 1994. ii. Rate of duty payable for the period commencing 25th December, 1994. iii. Whether action of Respondents in seeking to recover duty payable during 25th December, 1989 to 23rd August, 1990 already adjusted against refund payable to Petitioners, is justified and valid in law. This question is raised by Writ Petition No. 2009 of 1998. 6. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of an amusement park shall be 15 per cent of the payment made for admission to the amusement park, including payment made for admission for games and rides, whether charges separately or not 3(2) Where the payment for admission to an entertainment is made by means of a lump sum paid as a subscription or contribution to any society, or for a season ticket or for the right of admission to a series of entertainments or to any entertainment during a certain period of time, or for any privilege, right, facility or thing combined with the right of admission to any entertainment or involving such right of admission without further payment or at a reduced charge, the entertainment duty shall be levied and paid on 50 per cent; of such lump sum at the rates specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1). 3(5)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) or in any other provisions of this Act but subject to the provisions of clause (b), on and with effect from the 25th December, 1989, there shall be levied, and paid by the proprietor to the State Government, the entertainments duty in respect of an amusement park in the following manner, namely :- (i) for the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the rides and games available in the said amusement park, then, Section 3(2) will be applicable and the entertainment duty payable by the amusement park would be half of what is provided in Section 3(1)(b) being 15% i.e. 7.5%. 10. It is also argued that the proviso to Section 3(1)(b) ends with the phrase including payments made for admissions for games and rides, whether charged separately or not . Thus, 15% entertainment tax was payable by the amusement park where it charged an amount for mere admission and the charges for the games and rides being separate. However, where the amusement park charges a lump sum amount which includes the charges for games and rides, the entertainment tax payable would be 7.5 % in terms of Section 3(2). 11. It is argued that Section 3(5)(a) of the Act further gives a tax holiday on the duty payable under Section 3(1)(a) or Section 3(2) of the Act, therefore, for the fourth and fifth year of the operation of the amusement park, the duty would be 3.75%. 12. We do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the writ petitioners. In respect of first three years falling in Section 3(5)(a) of the Act, there is no disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 2(a-1) of the Act to mean a place wherein various types of amusements including games or rides or both are provided fairly, on a permanent basis, on payment for admission. The payment for admission is defined under Section 2(b) of the Act as the payment made by a person having admitted to one part of a place of entertainment and subsequently admitted to another part. Section 2(d) of the Act deals with admission to an entertainment which includes admission to any place in which the entertainment is held. 17. The argument that when a lumpsum amount is paid as a right of admission for all rides and games, then it becomes admission to series of entertainment, is not tenable. The writ petitioners issue one ticket including one or more rides or games situated in one compound. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that for every ride or game, it is charging separately. The admission to entertainment in terms of Section 2(d) of the Act includes all rides and games which are provided by the service provider. The series of entertainment as contemplated by Section 3(2) of the Act does not mean that on a single day ticket for one entry, it can be treated to be a series of entertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
