9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... customers by way of music played by live band and daily cabaret shows and Indian dances. The customers were not permitted to dance there. While having food they enjoyed live band played as well as cabaret shows. Petitioner was paying entertainment tax from the entry fee charged from customers of aforesaid restaurant. The other restaurant i.e. 'Pussycat Discotheque' had a different menu and atmosphere as compared to 'El Dorado' restaurant. A dance floor was provided there to customers for dancing to the recorded music. Timing of the discotheque was from 9 P.M. to Midnight and on Saturdays from 9 P.M. to 2 A.M. Lighting arrangement was kept low. Only couples were provided entry to provide them an element of privacy. Customers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reiterated its stand by again submitting written submissions and submitted that no entertainment tax under Section 3(3) of the said Act is leviable. As respondent No. 2 was not inclined to agree with the submissions of petitioner, it filed the present petition. Petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937 as extended to Union Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that same is an illegal restraint on the petitioner's right to carry on business and, thus, violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court vide its order dated 20.1.1987 directed respondent No. 2 i.e. Entertainment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntertainment and no entertainment tax could have been levied. It is further contended that the entry fee charged from guest towards temporary membership was only for restricting the entry of anti-social elements and also on account of space constraints in the discotheque and the same was not charged for 'entertainment' or 'amusement'. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent argued that the present case is covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in Geeta Enterprises v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra) wherein certain tests are laid down for a show to be an 'entertainment' within the meaning of the Act. It is contended that applying the judgment of Supreme Court in aforesaid case, Bombay High Court (East Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39; includes- (i) any payment made by a person who, having been admitted to one part of a place of entertainment is subsequently admitted to another part thereof, for admission to which a payment involving tax or more tax is required; (ii) any payment for seats or other accommodation in a place of entertainment; (iii) any payment for a programme or synopsis of an entertainment; and (iv) any payment for any purpose whatsoever connected with any entertainment which is a person is required to make as a condition of attending or continuing to attend the entertainment in addition to the payment, if any, for admission to the entertainment. The term 'entertainment' as used in Section 2(3) in the Act has been interpreted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re or entertainment or that the operator who pays himself feels entertained is wholly irrelevant in judging the actual meaning of the word 'entertainment' as used in Section 2 (3) of the Act. So also the fact that the income derived from the show is shared by one or more persons who run the show. 7. As per case of the petitioner, the primary object of running the 'Pussycat discotheque' was to provide a different menu and atmosphere to the customers. Lighting arrangement in the discotheque is also kept low as only couples are permitted entry so that there could be an element of privacy. Apart from meals, customers were served with hot and soft drinks with the meals. An Entry fee of Rs. 100/- @ Rs. 50/- per head was charged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Geeta Enterprises (supra) has been followed for interpreting the meaning of word 'entertainment'. 9. Learned Counsel contended that there was no public show in a discotheque as such judgment of Supreme Court in Geeta Enterprises (supra) is not applicable. Considering the facts of the case, we find no distinction between a case where performance is by a person other than the person who has made the payment and the case where the facilities are provided by the assessee i.e. the petitioner in the present case and the entertainment is in pursuance of the facilities provided. In Geeta Enterprises and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra) where assessee i.e. petitioner was providing the facility of video machine and the entertainmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
