A. SURESH versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 947 · Decided: 21-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A. SURESH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 21, 1996 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939: Sections 3 (2-B), 4 and 
(ii) and 4-E. 
Entertainment Tax-Cable Television-Levy of 40% tax on collections 
made through exhibition of-Held: not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) C 
(a) & (g). 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 19. 
Entertainment Tax-Cable Television-Levy of tax on-Held: no D 
comparison could be claimed with Doordarshan. 
The Tamil Nadu Entertainment.Tax Act, 1939 was enacted to 
impose tax on entertainments. The Act was amended to hring within 
its ambit what was called 'cable television', by imposing a levy of 
40% tax on collections made by the appellant through exhibition of E 
the same. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court 
challenging the validity of the Amending Act, which was dismissed. 
Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the Amending F 
Act violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution; that the tax was in 
fact am! truth a tax on education;· that the rate of the tax was 
prohibitive and was designed to kill tbe cable television in the interest 
of cinema theatres; and that the Amendment was violative of Article 
14 of the Constitution since it did not levy the tax on Doordarshan. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I. It may be true that providing entertainment is a form 
of exercise of freedom of speech and expression. It is quite likely that 
G 
the appellants also relay the programmes broadcast by Doordarshan H 
947 
948 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A and other T.V. networks and some of them may be informative in 
nature or educational in character but the fact remains that their 
activity is a combination of two rights i.e. business and speech-<mb-
clause (g) and (a) of clause (I) of Article 19. There is no reason why 
the business part of it cannot be taxed. If tax can be levied upon 
entertainment provided by cinemas, if taxes can be levied upon the 
B Press, it is ununderstandable why the appellants' activity cannot be 
taxed. Certainly, the appellants cannot claim that their activity is of 
more significance to society than that of the Press. Where the freedom 
of speech gets intertwined with business it undergoes a fundamental 
change and its exercise has to be balanced against societal interests. 
c 
D 
[952 H, 953 A,B) 
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Government of 
India & Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors., )1995] 2 SCC 16 and 
Express Newspapers v. Union of India., [1985] I SCC 641, relied on. 
Corpus Juries Secundum (Vol. 16), p.1132, referred to. 
2.1. The only question is whether the level of taxation is not 
within reasonable limits and whether its incidence is such as to disable 
the appellants from exercising their free speech right. Though the 
appellants have alleged that the tax imposed is too heavy and is 
E intended to drive them out of their business with a view to help the 
cinema theatres, no material has been placed to substantiate the said 
averement. [954 G,H] 
2.2. There is also no substance in the grievance that taxes are only 
levied upon them and not upon Doordarshan. There cannot be any 
F comparison between Doordarshan and the appellants. Doordarshan is 
a governmental organisation which is supposed to act in furtherance 
of public interest. It is not a business carried on by the Government. 
The revenues collected by it by permitting advertisements are only 
intended to defray part of the huge expenditure the Government 
incurs on establishing and maintaining the broadcasting system 
G throughout the country. By no stretch of imagination can the appellants 
claim any similarity with Doordarshan. [955 GH, 956 A) 
2.3. The reason given by the State for imposing tax at the rate 
of 40 percent is duly explained by the State. Since the appellants also 
H carry on business it is their duty to share the burden of the State by 
. I 
A. SURESHv. STATEOFT.N. [B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.] 
949 
paying taxes like any other business. The entertainment tax is an A 
indirect tax. It is meant to be and is passed on to the consumer i.e. 
subscriber. In the case of indirect taxes, levy at more than IOO per 
cent of the value of the goods is not unknown e.g., in the case of 
customs and central excise duties. As a matter of fact, even in the case 
of direct taxes, levy
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.