9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g events so as to extend the incidence of tax under Section 6? - HELD THAT:- Section 6 of the Entertainment Tax Act is the charging provision. There is also no dispute that sub-Section (1) of Section 6 gives a clue as to the nature of the tax, i.e., the taxable event. Thus, the expression payments for admission to any entertainment characterises what would be a taxable event for levy of Entertainment tax, save and except those services referred to in Section 7 which are accessed for entertainment. Section 7, amongst other things, refers to cable network, video, and DTH services - A careful perusal of Section 2 (m) of the Entertainment Tax Act would show that it is an inclusive definition and adverts to payments made by a person to gain access to either the seats or other accommodation in any form made available in a place of entertainment or payments made to gain access to entertainment or even payments made in connection with entertainment as a condition for attending or continuing to attend the entertainment event. The modes of payment are illustrative as the definition is inclusive and not exhaustive. Therefore, a circumstance where a person gets physical access to a place of en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 CM APPL. 12508/2015, W.P.(C) 9166/2015 CM APPL 20894/2015, W.P.(C) 12287/2015, W.P.(C) 1927/2016 CM APPL. 8262/2016, W.P.(C) 5994/2016 CM APPLs. 24660/2016 24661/2016, W.P.(C) 9153/2016 CM APPLs. 37062/2016 37063/2016, W.P.(C) 9661/2016, W.P.(C) 10729/2016, W.P.(C) 10731/2016, W.P.(C) 2586/2017 CM APPL 11183/2017 Present : For the Fashion Design Council of India : Mr. Arshad Hidayatullah, Sr. Adv., Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv., along with Mr Jitendra Singh and Mr Anshumaan Sahni, Advs.. For the Petitioner: Mr A.S. Chandhiok, Sr Adv. with Ms Purva Kohli, Mr Deep Bisht and Ms Suryaprava Basu, Advs. in WP (C) 7465/2013 2586/2017 For the Petitioners : Mr Kamal Sawhney, Mr Krishna Rao and Ms Aakansha Wadhwani, Advs. in WP (C)Nos.4966/2013, 10729/2016 10731/2016. For the GNCTD : Mr Satyakam, ASC, with Mr Pradyut Kashyap, Advs. Mr Sameer Vashisht, ASC (Civil), GNCTD with Mr Aman Singh Bhadoria, Mr Prem Singh and Mr Arjun Gupta, Advs. in WP (C) 2563/2013, 3626/2015, 12287/2015, 10731/2016 2586/2017. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: I. PREFACE 1. The above-captioned matters have been placed before me due to the order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the Division Bench comprising Hon ble Mr Justice S Ravindra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N OF THE WRIT PETITIONERS FDCI 5. FDCI is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860. It has been established and constituted to promote the growth and development of the fashion industry concerning the manufacture, design, marketing, and distribution of apparel and other accessories. 6. Towards this end, the FDCI organises fashion shows. 6.1 On a few occasions, the Ministry of Textiles and other government bodies have supported FDCI in this regard under, what is known as, the Market Access Initiative . 6.2 Significantly, the fashion shows organised by FDCI are not ticketed events [hereafter non-ticketed events ]. Participation in fashion shows is solely through invites. 6.3 FDCI finances fashion shows, amongst other means, through sponsorships. The fashion show events are either directly sponsored or via partnership agreements entered into with the concerned sponsor. 6.4 In lieu of sponsorship amounts, FDCI offers certain rights such as the right to associate as a title sponsor or presenting partner; the right to have the sponsor s logo presented as part of a composite event logo, which is then, embedded in communications sent out, and promotion material dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2015 09.10.2013 to 13.10.2013 29.12.2014 1,43,22,958/- 3626/2015 31.07.2013 to 04.08.2013 29.12.2014 55,08,750/- 10.2 The remaining writ petitions preferred by FDCI seek to assail communications issued by GNCTD, among other things, calling upon it to deposit 15% of sponsorship receipts and other amounts received at the fashion show event, as alluded to in Section 2 (m) of the Entertainment Tax Act. 10.3 For convenience, the direction contained in the communication qua which FDCI is primarily aggrieved by, is extracted hereafter: Sir, With reference to your letter dated 03.09.2014 on the subject cited above, I am directed to request you to furnish the following documents at the earliest for processing your application to issue [a] No Prohibitory Order: . 5. Details of sponsorship received/receivable alongwith agreements and security of Entertainment Tax in the form of Demand Draft @15% of total sponsorship receipts and other receipts as per section 2 (m) of the DEBT Act, 1996. GMR Sports 11. GMR Sports is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is in the business of conducting commercial activity in the sports arena. 11.1 The main objects for which GMR Sports is incorporated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch enabled it to put together a football team to represent Delhi in the Indian Super League . 13.1 As a tournament franchisee, Den Soccer was obligated to organise certain matches in Delhi. As a part of this arrangement, Den Soccer was to print, sell, and distribute tickets for the matches held in Delhi. 13.2 Den Soccer also approached sponsors. In return for sponsorship amounts, sponsors received benefits such as displaying the sponsors company logo or trading name; exclusive or priority booking rights; and conferring the right to sponsor prizes and trophies. 13.3 The record discloses that Den Soccer sought approval from GNCTD via a letter dated 29.09.2014 for holding three (3) football matches in Delhi on 14.10.2014, 25.10.2014, and 29.10.2014. 13.4 As sought, GNCTD granted a no prohibitory order , i.e., approval, via communication dated 01.10.2014 with certain conditions stipulated therein. 13.5 One of the conditions stipulated in the communication dated 01.10.2014 was that Den Soccer would furnish the details of sponsors along with the amount received. 13.6 On 20.10.2014, Den Soccer wrote to GNCTD stating that while it was negotiating with entities for sponsorship, agreements h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent was scheduled for that day, i.e., 21.12.2015, it would submit relevant documents and applicable taxes before the next event scheduled on 25.12.2015. Sportify also requested GNCTD issue a No Objection Certificate [NOC] for the event on 21.12.2015. 16.5 GNCTD approved the event on the same date, i.e., 21.12.2015, with certain conditions stipulated in the NOC. 17. Aggrieved by the notice dated 21.12.2015, Sportify instituted WP (C) 12287/2015. BCCI 18. BCCI is a society registered under The Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 . BCCI avers that it is the conceptualiser of the tournament called the Indian Premier League [IPL]. 18.1 It is BCCI s stand that for convening and holding IPL cricket matches, it grants franchisee rights to various entities. One such entity is GMR Sports, which as noticed above, has also instituted writ petitions in this Court. 18.2 According to BCCI, the host franchisee retains the amount received from the sale of tickets concerning cricket matches held at the host stadium. That said, franchisees are obligated to provide BCCI with tickets, free of charge, for matches played at the franchisee s stadium. By way of example, GMR Sports holds its cricket ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the five (5) entities before me, the critical issue that requires determination is whether sponsorship receipts constitute payment for admission to entertainment . 25.1 The issue culled out above would require to be answered, inter alia, bearing in mind the scheme of the Entertainment Tax Act and the Rules, in particular, Sections 2 (aa), 2 (m), 2(u), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 15 of the Entertainment Tax Act; Rules 6 to 8 and 11 of the 1997 Rules; and Forms 3, 5 and 6 appended to the 1997 Rules. IV. OVERVIEW OF THE DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT 26. At this stage, it would help if the key findings returned by the learned Judges were culled to better appreciate the issue arising for consideration. Ravindra Bhat, J. 27. Bhat J. has returned the following findings: (i) The fashion show events organised by FDCI are non-ticketed events, and individuals are admitted through special invites issued by the organisers to potential buyers of products showcased at the event. (ii) Fashion shows do not have a public colour since entry to the events is restricted to a select audience. A member of the public cannot buy a ticket and watch the show. (iii) The goods/products showcased at the fashion show are bra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prospects through advertising and other promotional activities. (xi) To tax sponsors who pay money to secure space for business purposes would be an incongruity under the Entertainment Tax Act. (xii) Mere admission to an entertainment event cannot result in Entertainment Tax being attracted to sponsorship amounts received by entities referred to above, i.e., FDCI, BCCI, GMR Sports, Den Sports, and Sportify as the said amounts are received in lieu of sponsors being given the right to advertise their products, brands and logos. (xiii) In particular, where BCCI and GMR Sports are concerned, admission to cricket matches is regulated through a single ticket [on which Entertainment Tax is paid], and if entry to the very same event becomes the basis for levy of Entertainment Tax [finding its source in payments made for sponsorship], multiple taxing incidences would be created. (xiv) The Entertainment Tax Act does not provide a defined and valid collection mechanism for sponsorship receipts. (xv) Explanation 2 appended to Section 2 (m) is not clarificatory. It introduced a new element concerning sponsored events that were not within the scope and ambit of the unamended Entertainment Tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the display of products or logos, or even advertisements in a place of entertainment, in lieu of payment should be construed as payment for admission to an entertainment . Similarly, any payment, including sponsorship amounts, which is connected with entertainment and, in lieu of which a person is allowed to attend/view the entertainment on display, would necessarily have to be construed as payment for admission . (iv) Thus, if the provisions of Sections 2 (m) and 2 (aa) of the Entertainment Tax Act are read together, the following conclusion emerges: when payment is made to provide accommodation for displaying advertisements, logos, etcetera, such payment would be liable for imposition of tax as it would constitute admission to a place where entertainment is held. Similarly, any payment , by whatever name called which a person is required to make as a condition precedent for attending or continuing to attend an entertainment event, shall also be construed as payment for admission under Section 2 (m) of the Entertainment Tax Act. Thus, payments made in the form of provision of free meals, beverages, decoration of the venue, or other services or benefits extended to the organiser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is only levied on payments made otherwise, which would include benefits, services, etcetera, extended to organisers/proprietors of entertainment events. (xi) Explanation 2 is clarificatory and intends to prevent the entertainment industry from exploiting loopholes to avoid payment of taxes. (xii) Legislatures have the competence to legislate both retrospectively and prospectively, and therefore, taxation law is no exception to this power. The retrospective effect of Explanation 2 does not make it illegal for two reasons: first, the Legislature says so in explicit terms, and second, it does not affect the existing rights of the parties. (xiii) A conjoint reading of Section 6 (6) and Section 2 (m) of the Entertainment Tax Act would show that any payment made otherwise in any form is taxable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Entertainment Tax Act does not contain a charging provision concerning sponsorship receipts. (xiv) The organisers of sponsored entertainment events cannot escape their liability to pay taxes simply because they are receiving taxable amounts in the form of non-cash services and benefits instead of cash. (xv) Inter alia, Section 6 (4) of the Entertainment Tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J. as is reflected in paragraph seventy-seven (77) of his judgment. For convenience, paragraph seventy-seven (77) is extracted hereafter: 77. The argument that sponsored events and sponsorship per se were covered by the un-amended Act, is therefore, insubstantial and rejected. The sequitur is that the amendment introduced a new element. By itself, in the absence of change to the enacting part creating a levy, (as discussed previously) the addition of the two impugned explanation, with retrospective effect cannot result in a valid impost; such impost cannot be retrospective in character. It is therefore held that the amendment is not clarificatory; it is also of no consequence given that there is no amendment to the charging section. Nor has a fresh charging provision been introduced introducing a fresh levy. In view of the opinion expressed as to the effect of the amendment, it is held that the retrospectivity assigned to it, is of no consequence. However, it is also held that as an amending enactment, which sought to introduce a new levy, which did not exist earlier, the impugned notification would be unreasonable because it would were it indeed operative-impose onerous obligation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62 of List II, Schedule VII, is on the person being entertained and not on the event sponsorship. Thus, the provisions of Section 2 (m) read with Explanation 2, whereby Entertainment Tax is sought to be collected on sponsorship receipts, are ultra vires on the ground of GNCTD's legal competence to levy Entertainment Tax. 33. Section 2 (m) of the Entertainment Tax Act, which defines the expression payment for admission , is the measure of tax. Thus, Explanation 2 added to this section only expanded the scope of the tax measure by including sponsorship receipts. There is no nexus between the tax measure and the taxable event, which is adverted to in Section 6 (1), i.e., payments for admission to any entertainment . The writ petitioners have received sponsorship amounts in lieu of rights conferred on the sponsors to advertise their goods, brands, logos, etcetera. For instance, IPL cricket matches, football, or wrestling events organised under the aegis of ISL and PWL, are ticketed events on which appropriate tax is paid. However, sponsorship amounts received for advertisements can bear no tax as there is no nexus with the taxable event, i.e., admission to entertainment for tickete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification dated 01.10.2012. The well-established principle of law is that it looks forward and not backward. The doctrine of Lex prospicit non respicit enunciates this principle. [See CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 1]. 33.7 Even if the Court were to hold that levy of Entertainment Tax on sponsorship amounts is constitutionally valid, it cannot be applied retrospectively since Explanation 2 appended to Section 2 (m) introduces new and substantive law which, contrary to GNCTD s stand, is not clarificatory. 33.8 Although the Entertainment Tax Act was originally intended to tax individuals admitted to entertainment, its scope has been significantly altered to include sponsorship amounts. Thus, the inclusion of sponsorship amounts for taxability that could not have been contemplated by the assessees should render the amendment prospective. [See Union of India v. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd., (2009) 12 SCC 209, and Vatika case ]. 33.9 A combined reading of Section 2 (o) along with Sections 9 and 10 of the Entertainment Tax Act would reveal that proprietors are not required to gain or seek admission by holding a ticket in the prescribed form in which proper tax has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, sponsorship amounts by the organisers/proprietors in lieu of accommodation provided for advertising products of sponsors would be amenable to tax. It is, therefore, clear that given the aforesaid construct, there is no requirement for a seat to be made available in the place of entertainment, much less have a ticketed entry for such seats. 35.4 The definition of the expression payment for admission in Section 2 (m) of the Entertainment Tax Act is inclusive and not exhaustive. The width of this expression comes to the fore if one reads sub-Clause (iv) of Section 2 (m). The said provision brings within its ambit any payment, by whatever name called , for any purpose whatsoever , connected with an entertainment , which a person is required to make in any form as a condition of attending or continuing to attend the entertainment . This payment can either be in addition to the payment, if any, for admission to entertainment or without any such payment for admission . 35.5 A perusal of the provisions of Section 2 (m) along with the Explanation [which is renumbered as Explanation 1] in its unamended form, would reveal that even contribution collected in connection with entertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atories v. Dy. Labour Commr., (2007) 5 SCC 281, CTO v. Rajasthan Taxchem Ltd., (2007) 3 SCC 124]. 36.2 The activity carried out by the writ petitioners constitutes exhibition , which falls within the definition of entertainment as provided in Section 2 (i) of the Entertainment Tax Act. The plain meaning of the word exhibition is a collection of things, for example, works of art that are shown to the public . [See Oxford English Dictionary, 8th Edition]. Similarly, the meaning of amusement is a pleasurable occupation of the senses, or that which furnishes it, as dancing, sports or music . [Geeta Enterprises case]. 36.3 The contention of the writ petitioners that entertainment events for which access is gained by invitation would not come within the scope of the Entertainment Tax Act is untenable. [See Amit Kumar v. State of UP, (2008) 1 SCC 528 and Geeta Enterprises case ]. Insofar as FDCI is concerned, it cannot now contend that fashion shows organised by it do not constitute entertainment given the judgment of the Division Bench dated 30.04.2012 passed in WP (C) 1145/2010 and other connected matters titled Fashion Design Council of India v. GNCTD and Ors. . [See paragraph 15 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by a sponsor is payment for admission . This is a well-recognised methodology used by the Legislature. Therefore, the Legislature is competent to provide an artificial definition qua a taxable event. [ See CCE v. SD. Fine Chemicals (P) Ltd., 1995 Supp (2) SCC 336 and Addl. ITO v. E. Alfred, (1962) 44 ITR 442]. 37.1 The submission advanced that the Entertainment Tax Act does not provide a mechanism for assessing and collecting tax on sponsorships is misconceived. The mechanism for assessment and collection of tax, both for ticketed and non-ticketed events, is referrable to Rule 11 read with Forms 5 and 6. While Form 5 relates to ticketed [including ticketed and non-ticketed] entertainment events, Form 6 refers to entertainment events where admission is granted exclusively by invitation. 37.2 Information concerning sponsors and the amount remitted by them is required to be indicated against serial no. 10 in Form 6. Likewise, the names of advertisers and the amount received from them require disclosure against serial no. 11 in Form 6. The purpose of seeking such information in Form 6 is to ascertain the exact sponsorship amount received by an organiser/proprietor so that it could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax rate would be applied to compute the tax. [See Govind Saran Ganga Saran v. CST, 1985 Supp SCC 205]. 42. The uncontested position is that Section 6 of the Entertainment Tax Act is the charging provision. There is also no dispute that sub-Section (1) of Section 6 gives a clue as to the nature of the tax, i.e., the taxable event. Thus, the expression payments for admission to any entertainment characterises what would be a taxable event for levy of Entertainment tax, save and except those services referred to in Section 7 which are accessed for entertainment. Section 7, amongst other things, refers to cable network, video, and DTH services. 43. Furthermore, to obtain a clue as to what the expression payment for admission could mean in the context of sponsorship receipts, one would have to take recourse to sub-Clauses (i) and (iv) of Clause (m) of Section 2, read along with Explanations 1 and 2. For convenience, the provisions are extracted hereafter: (m) payment for admission includes (i) any payment made by a person for seats or other accommodation in any form in a place of entertainment; (iv) any payment, by whatever name called for any purpose whatsoever, connected with an en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on (1), is made wholly or partly, by means of a lump sum paid as subscription, contribution, donation or otherwise, the tax shall be paid on the amount of such lump sum and on the amount of payment for admission, if any, made otherwise. (7) Where in a hotel or a restaurant, or a club, entertainment is provided by way of cabarets, floor shows, or entertainment is organised on special occasion along with any meal or refreshment with a view to attract customers, the same shall be taxed at a rate to be notified under sub-section (1). 9. Restriction of admission Save as otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, no person (other than a person who has some specific duty to perform in connection with the entertainment, or duty imposed upon him by law, or a person authorised by the Government in this behalf) shall be admitted to any entertainment except with a ticket in the prescribed form denoting that the proper tax payable under section 6 has been paid. 10. Restriction on entry to entertainment No person (other than a person who has some specific duty to perform in connection with the entertainment, or duty imposed upon him by law, or a person authorised by the Government in thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly through a satellite or otherwise, are also brought within the ambit of the expression payment for admission . 47. Although for the purposes of this case, we are concerned only with sub-Clauses (i) and (iv) of Section 2 (m), I have referred to them for completeness and to give an idea as to the vast reach of the definition contained in Section 2 (m) of the Entertainment Tax Act. 48. The width of the provision even before its amendment was wide, something which is evident upon a plain reading of the Explanation [now Explanation 1]. Therefore, even before the amendment, any subscription raised, contribution received, or donation collected in connection with entertainment, where admission was partly or entirely by tickets or invitation, specifying the amount of admission or reduced rate of the ticket, was deemed as payment for admission . 49. Undoubtedly, Section 2 (m) s width and amplitude are broad. That said, it is certainly not exhaustive. It not only includes payments which have a direct nexus to the entertainment event, but also those connected with entertainment. However, what must be borne in mind is that whatever the width of Section 2 (m) of the Entertainment Tax Act may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... organiser of an entertainment in lieu of the sponsor's product/brand name or otherwise was deemed payment for admission . Through this insertion, the Legislature introduced a new element in the payment for admission definition clause, as found in Section 2 (m), without making corresponding changes in the charging section. Thus, quite clearly, sponsorships, whether in the form of money, value of goods supplied or services rendered or benefits provided to an organiser of an entertainment programme in lieu of the sponsors right to advertise products, undertake branding was not, contrary to the argument advanced on behalf of GNCTD, implicitly embedded in the unamended provision. 50.3 Explanation 2 brought within the sway of the expression payment for admission a new mode of payment agnostic to whether or not the sponsor or their representative could attend or continue to attend the entertainment event. As alluded to above, the main focus of the person sponsoring the event is to advance their business interests. Whether their representative could attend or continue to attend the entertainment event would make no difference to a sponsor. 51. Therefore, the contention put forth on beh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in any manner whatsoever for entertainment through direct-to-home (DTH) broadcasting service for the distribution of television signals and value added services with the aid of any type of addressable system, which connects a television set, computer system at a residential or non-residential place of subscriber's premises, directly to the satellite or otherwise was brought within the ambit of payment for admission . 52.4 Through Section 2 (o)(iv), the expression proprietor in relation to entertainment was expanded to include any person having a licence to provide direct-to-home (DTH) service by the Central Government under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 , and to also include a service provider of cable television signals and value added services, registered or licensed under the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995 . 52.5 Admittedly, no such attempt was made when Explanation 2 was inserted via Notification dated 01.10.2012. Therefore, as rightly argued on behalf of the writ petitioners, tax on sponsorship receipts would fail as neither has the charging section [i.e., Section 6] been amended, nor has a new ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gger a valid law retrospectively-this proposition is subject to a caveat. The caveat is that Courts while examining the legal tenability of such statute, can delve into its features to ascertain whether it is arbitrary, unreasonable, and burdensome. Although the Legislature, if otherwise competent, is entitled to legislate on the quantum of tax to be levied and recovered, as also the conditions which ought to apply, the unreasonableness, the arbitrariness, and the harshness may come to the fore in a given set of circumstances. While the fact that retrospectivity spans over a longish period cannot alone be a determinative factor as regards its validity, it certainly forms part of the judicial review that the Court undertakes. The basis for such an approach is that retrospective laws are contrary to the general principle that persons are entitled to arrange their affairs based on the existing state of law and, therefore, past transactions which were otherwise valid, ought not to be brought within the rigour of the law. A statute enacted by the Legislature is, ordinarily, prospective. As alluded to above, it can be given a retrospective effect where the Legislature does so by use of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nected with an entertainment event which is required to be made, in any form , as a condition of attending or continuing to attend the event . [Section 2 (m) (iv)]. 61. In my view, the imposition of Entertainment Tax would also fail as no separate machinery has been put in place to assess and collect tax on sponsorships. Rule 11 of the 1997 Rules, inter alia, prescribes two (2) Forms for ticketed and non-ticketed entertainment events. Form 5 requires persons/societies desirous of holding an entertainment to provide, amongst other things, details concerning the charge levied [exclusive of tax] for admission to various classes, the quantum of Entertainment Tax and surcharge, and finally, the total amount payable by an entrant to the subject entertainment event. [See Serial no. 8 of Form 5]. 61.1 Furthermore, in Form 5, the organisers are also required to give details concerning the following: number of seats in each class, starting serial number of each kind of ticket for each class for each show, total number of each kind of tickets printed for each class for each show and maximum amount of tax, including surcharge payable for seven (7) days based on full seating capacity for the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stablished, headings do not control the plain provisions of a statute/rule, especially when the enactment is unambiguous. [ See Tata Power Co. Ltd. v. Reliance Energy Ltd., (2009) 16 SCC 659]. VII. CONCLUSION 62. In conclusion, my answer to the four (4) issues referred for consideration is as follows: (i) The unamended Section 2 (m) of the Entertainment Tax Act did not cover sponsorship of fashion shows and sporting events so as to make it amenable to tax under Section 6. (ii) The addition of Explanation 2 to Section 2 (m) with retrospective effect via Notification dated 01.10.2012 was arbitrary, harsh, and unreasonable and hence, violated Article 14 of the Constitution. In other words, the 2012 amendment was not clarificatory, as GNCTD contended. (iii) The imposition of a tax on sponsorship under the Entertainment Tax Act must fail in the absence of a specific charging provision. (iv) The Entertainment Tax Act does not contain a mechanism for assessing and collecting tax on sponsorships. 63. For the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to allow the writ petitions. Resultantly, in addition to the above, the reliefs granted by Bhat J. in paragraphs 82 (4) and (5) of the judgment are sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
