GEETA ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 812 · Decided: 05-09-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
812 
GEETA ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 
September 5, 1983 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL A_LI, A: VARADARAJAN AND 
' 
M. P. THAKKAR, JJ,] 
Uuar Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937-Sec. 2(3 -
Definition of Jlntertainment-Extremely wide- Video shows fall in the ambit of 
s. 2(3) and are exigible to entertain"1ent tax under sec. 3. 
it11en a show WO!lld be 
entertainment-Test laid down. 
Words and phrases-'Enterta(nment'. 
The petitioners opened video parlour by installing electronic machine 
with video screen and permitted persons to enter the pre.nises without any 
charge to view a show on the video which consisted mainly of sports, games 
etc. played on the scr~en of the video. The show lasting upto 30 second.s was 
operated by inserting 50 paise coin into the video machin'e by an operator 
from the audience who wanted to operate the video_ machine. While one High 
Court was of the view that the video games were included in the definition of 
entertairiment and were Jiab!e to entertainment tax, two other High Courts 
were of the opposite view. The petitioners filed the present writ petitions 
contending that in view of the manner in which the video games were shown 
and also in view of ·the fact that these· gam~s, sports etc. involved a great 
amount of skill for the operator, the video games would not be an entertainment 
. within the meaning of sub-sec, (3) of sec. 2. 
Dismissing -the_ petitions, 
HELD : The video show is an entertainment under sec. 2(1) and 
therefore eKigible to tax under sec. 3.] [82! A-BJ 
A perusal of the various shades, aspects, forms and implications or the 
word 'entertainment as defined in different ·books and dictionaries clearly leads 
to an irresistible inference "that the word 'entertainment' has been used ih a· 
very wide sense so as· to include within its ambit, entertainment of any kind· 
including one which may be purely educative. 'Sub-sec. (3) of sec. 2 itself by 
using the word 'en~ertainment aS "any exhibitional, performance, amusement, 
game or sport to whiCh persons are admitted for payment" has extended the 
scope of entertainment to expressly. include any kind of atnusement, game ot 
sport. When a number of people \vithout any admission fee enter a hall for 
· entertainment and enjoy the games it becomes a public show and the hall 
where the video is played becomes a public hall and amounts therefore to a 
_, 
)• 
+. 
GEETA ENTERPRISES v. U.P. Faza/ Ali, J.)· 
813 
public exhibition which is squarely covered by the first limb (exhibitional) of 
the definition of entertainment in sub-sec. (3) of sec. 2. 817 A·B, E-E] 
A 
. . 
. 
Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, [l979] l S.C.R. 545; 
Stroud's Judicitil Dictionary (4th Edn; vol. 2. p. 916); Words and Phrases, Judi-
cially Defined (vol. 2, p. 206-207); Words and Phrases (Permanent Edn; vol. 14A, 
p. 353); Reader's Digest Family Word Finder at p. 264; Webster's Third New 
· International Dictionary; and Concise English Dictionary by Hayward and Sparkes, 
referred to. 
In the· present case by operating the video, the operator of the video 
pays 50 paise per 30 seconds for playing the gan1es, sports and other kind of 
performances which are shown on the machine and which can be watched by 
interested spectators. The circumstances that no admission fee is charged from 
viewers seeing the video by itself, however, cannot defuse or alter the kind of 
entertainment deprived by the person who pays for ·playing the games. The 
operator of video would deprive, pleasure and be entertained regardless of 
whether the possesses. skill or not; If he possesses skill he may derive more 
pleasure on less payment otherwise he will have to pay but he will derive 
pleasure all tho same. · That he would not pay money if it did not thrill, 
amuse, aDd entertain him, is obvious. Besides, 'the game brings a substantial 
return for the person who makes available these facilities. [817 C-E, G·H] 
Gopal Krishna Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., All L J, 1982 at 
. page 607 approved. 
Harris Wilson v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., A.T.R. 1982 M.P. at 
page 171 and H. T. Gursahaney v. State & Anr., 1982 (2)-vol. Xlll (2), GLR 
526 overruled. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 1731, 1915, 2277, 
3691, 7097, 9~28/81 and 2121, 7430, 7431, 8349, 9319 of 1982. 
(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
K. C. Dua, for the Petitioners. 
il: P. Maheshwari, for the Respondent.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.