LexSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. versus RASH BEHARI SARKAR AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ST ATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. A v. RASH BEHARI SARKAR AND ANR. DECEMBER 4, 1992 [R.M. SAHAI AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] B Bengal Amusements Taxes Act, 1922 : Section 8-Entertainment tax-1'Exemption from payment of'-Notification granting exemption to any perfonnance organised by a Group Theatre, Amateur Theatre or Amateur Jatra fonned exclusively for cultural activities onl~Validity of-Exclusion of C performances rendered by professional theatres/jatras-for monetary gains-Whether violative of Article 14 of the Constitution-Classification amongst perfonning groups based on profit motive-Whether reasonable and not arbitrary-Amendment of the Section- Effect of D Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 14-Classification amongst equal~When pennissible Tax exemption based on profit motive-Whether violative--E:.ercise of power-Tests to be observed. Section 8 of the Bengal Amusements Taxes Act, 1922, as substituted in 1981 by the West Bengal Taxation Laws Amendment Act, provided that E the State Government may for a social, educational or scientific purposes, by general or special order exempt fully or partly the entertainments tax, show tax, surcharge or additional surcharge payable under the Act for any entertainment or class of entertainments, subject to such exclusions as may be laid down in such order. In exercise of this power the appellant- State issued a notification in March 1984 exempting any performance organised by a bonafide group theatre, amateur theatre or amateur jatra, formed exclusively for purposes of cultural activities, and not for monetary gains, by engaging artists who are not paid any regular or con~ctual fees, from payment of entertainment tax. F G On a Writ Petition filed by one of the professional theatres assailing exemption granted to those groups who were engaged in cultural activities only without monetary gains, as beyond the power to grant exemption for social, educational and scientific purpose and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the High Court held that the classification made on the basis H 351 352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) SUPP.~ S.C.R. A of engagement of a paid artist• was not reasonable as it did not serve the legislative objective sought to be achieved by Section 8 of the Act and consequently it was ultra vires.lt also held that since dramatic performance given by a professional group on public stages could not be said to be devoid of any social values, the classification made by the Government B between the amateur and professional group was arbitrary, and that dramatic performance for social, educational or scientific purposes formed class by themselves and, therefore, any further classification on pro~t motive and engagement of artists on contractual or regular basis was not permissible in law. C Disposing of the appeal, this Court HELD: Per Sahai, J. 1.1. Equality means equality in similar circumstances between same D class of persons for same purpose and objective. It cannot operate amongst unequals. Only likes can be treated alike. But even amongst likes the legislature or executive may classify on distinction which are real. A classification amongst groups performing shows for monetary gains and cultural activities cannot be said to be arbitrary. May be that both the groups carry out the legislative objective of promoting social and educa- E tional activities and, therefore, they are likes but the distinction between the two on monetary gains and otherwise is real and intelligible. So long the classification is reasonable it cannot be struck down as arbitrary. Likes can be treated differently for good and valid reasons. The State in treating the group performing theatrical shows for advancement of social and F educational purpose, differently, on basis of profit making from those formed exclusively for cultural activities cannot be said to have acted in violation of Article 14. [359-E-G] Orient Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. v. The Union of India, [1962] Suppl. 3 G S.C.R. 481 and Gopal Narain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (1964] 4 S.C.R. 869, relied on. 1.2. Dramatic performances for monetary gains and otherwise are different and stand_ on different footing. The test is not if, even, the professional group by its performance is serving social or educational H purpose but if the two groups can reasonably stand on their own. If the ' .. STATEOFW.B. v. RASHBEHARI 3.53 classification is vali
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.