9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M 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 Bhat and Hon'ble Ms Justice Deepa Sharma, former Judges of this Court, becaus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ociety 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 distributed; the right to get the designa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08/2015 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vate Limited granted it franchisee rights, which 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y wrote back to GNCTD on 21.12.2015, stating that, given that the event 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I. ISSUE 25. Given the backdrop and considering the framework of the writ actions filed by 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, or otherwise" are made for securing seats or any other accommodation in lieu of entertainment and not for furthering business 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 clarific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt tax avoidance by the adoption of disingenuous methods to funnel payments to organisers/proprietors of entertainment events. (iii) The "accommodation" made available for 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way of "subscription, contribution donation", and secondly, on the amount of "payment for admission", "if any", "made otherwise". Thus, if Section 6 (6) is superimposed on Section 2 (m), it is clear that the charge 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 enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtainment Tax even before Explanation 2 was brought in by virtue of Notification dated 01.10.2012, was taken to its logical extent, then there was no necessity of amending the Entertainment Tax Act. This issue was directly and correctly answered by Bhat 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling." 32.8 Post-amendment: "Taxes on entertainments and amusements to the extent levied and collected by a Panchayat or a Municipality or a Regional Council or a District Council." 32.9 The tax incidence under Entry 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation, albeit for non-ticketed events in Form 6. Significantly, Form 5 does not require disclosure of information concerning sponsored events. 33.6 GNCTD has arbitrarily and unreasonably sought to levy Entertainment Tax with retrospective effect, i.e., 01.04.1998, pursuant to the issuance of 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 Lotter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.2017. 35.3 Section 2 (m) (i) defines the expression "payment for admission" as one which includes "any payment made by a person for seats or other accommodation in any form in a place of entertainment". The expressions "other accommodation in any form" and "in a place of entertainment" have a wide amplitude. 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot curtail its reach. [See S.K. Gupta v. K.P. Jain, (1979) 3 SCC 54, Geeta Enterprises v. State of UP, (1983) 4 SCC 202, P. Kasilingam v. PSG College of Technology, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 348, N.D.P. Namboodripad v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 502, Bharat Coop. Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. v. Employees Union, (2007) 4 SCC 685, Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories 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 52 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on "payment for admission" artificial meaning. 37. Given that the Legislature has created a legal fiction, the Court need not examine the true nature of sponsorship payments. The inquiry about whether sponsorship payments allow for admission to some persons qua an entertainment event has been obviated. In other words, Explanation 2 deems that a payment made 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have the following attributes: i) First, the subject statute should advert to the taxable event, i.e., the event that attracts the levy. ii) Second, the statute should unambiguously identify the person on whom tax is imposed and who is obliged to remit the tax. iii) Third, the rate at which tax would be imposed. iv) Fourth, the measure, i.e., the value to which the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e regular entertainment programme without payment of admission or with payment of admission less than what would have been paid in the normal course, the proprietor shall be liable to pay tax which would have been payable in a normal course at full house capacity or the tax for the programme held in lieu of the regular entertainment programme, whichever is higher. (6) Where the payment for admission to an entertainment, referred to in sub-section (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 impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be deprived of the same; or payment made by a person "who having been admitted to one part of a place of entertainment is subsequently admitted to another part". 46.2 Similarly, payments made in the form of "contribution, subscription" towards "installation or connection charges" or any other charges for entertainment through DTH, broadcasting service, for distribution of television signals, and value added services connected to a television set or a computer system, directly 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 e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (P) Primary Teachers' Assn. v. Administrative Officer, (2004) 1 SCC 755 and Pardeep Aggarbatti v. State of Punjab, (1997) 8 SCC 511]. 50.1 The Legislature, noticing this gap in the statute, took measures [as it turned out, half-measures] to address this lacuna in the Entertainment Tax Act by inserting Explanation 2 via Notification dated 01.10.2012. 50.2 Via Notification dated 01.10.2012, "[a]ny sponsorship amount paid or value of goods supplied or services rendered or benefits provided to the 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (fa), (fb), (ha), (ka), (pa), (pb) and (s). These Clauses define "addressable system", "admission to an entertainment", "assessing authority", "broadcaster", "cable operator", "direct-to-home (DTH) service", "multi-system operator (MSO)", "set top box", "service provider", and "subscriber" respectively. 52.3 Furthermore, the amendment added sub-Clauses to Section 2 (m) and 2 (o). Via Section 2 (m)(vi), "any payment made by a person by way of contribution, subscription, installation or connection charges or any other charges collected 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ship amounts within the remit of the Entertainment Tax Act. 56. The impugned Notification dated 01.10.2012, which amended the Entertainment Tax Act by adding Explanation 2 to Section 2 (m), is, in my view, even otherwise arbitrary and unreasonable as it came into effect on 01.04.1998. It is important to point out that the unamended Act, which is an Act of 1996, was first brought into force under the Delhi Act 8 of 1997 on 08.10.1997. 56.1 While there can be no quarrel with the proposition that a Legislature, if otherwise competent, is entitled to trigger 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 reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly to further their business interest. This would be true of other organisers/writ petitioners referred to above. 59. In common parlance, and in the context of the present case, sponsorship would mean "the act of providing money for a television or radio programme, website, sports event, or other activity in exchange for advertising:" [See Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sponsorship.]. 60. Therefore, sponsorships received by the writ petitioners, as indicated above, cannot be construed as payment for admission connected 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as GMR Sports, Den Soccer, and Sportify issue tickets and complimentary passes. Concededly, both on tickets and complimentary passes, Entertainment Tax is imposed, collected, and made over to GNCTD. These entities also receive sponsorships, the details of which are required to be disclosed. However, it cannot be construed that because information regarding sponsors and advertisers is required to be disclosed, sponsorship receipts attracted Entertainment Tax and information sought against serial number 18 related to the same, notwithstanding the heading of Form 6. As is well established, '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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
