THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. versus PAN INDIA PARYATAN LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 652 · Decided: 18-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA, HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
v.
PAN INDIA PARYATAN LIMITED & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6438-6439 of 2009)
FEBRUARY 18, 2020
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923: ss. 3(1)(b), 3(2),
3(5)(a) and (b) – Duty on payments for admission to entertainment
– Levy of entertainment duty for entry in amusement park –
Respondent was running an amusement park and was required to
pay entertainment duty – Respondent sought confirmation that
entertainment tax to be levied @ 3.75% of the value of a consolidated
ticket, however, demand of entertainment duty @7.5% and not
@3.75% from the respondent – Respondent paid in protest – Writ
petition challenging the provisions of the Act and seeking refund of
the duty paid – High Court held that entertainment duty to be levied
for the amusement park is 50% of 15% i.e. 7.5% u/s. 3(2), thus, in
terms of s. 3(5)(a) and (b), the entertainment duty is 50% of 7.5%
i.e. 3.75% – On appeal, held: In respect of the first three years from
the date of commencement of the amusement park, no entertainment
duty is payable – However, in respect of the subsequent two years,
the rate of duty leviable is u/s.3(1)(b) or, as the case may be, u/s.
3(2) – All amusement parks for all entertainment are not entitled to
concessional duty in terms of s. 3(2) of the Act, thus, respondents
cannot claim benefit u/s.3(2) – Amusement parks would be entitled
to only one benefit either u/s. 3(2) or u/s. 3(5)(a) – Since s.3(2) is
not applicable to all amusement parks for all other activities,
therefore, the entertainment duty in terms of s.3(5)(a) alone would
be leviable – Order of the High Court that in terms of s. 3(5)(a), the
entertainment duty is 50% of the duty payable u/s. 3(2) cannot be
accepted and is set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Sub-clause (ii) of Section 3(5)(a) of the Bombay
Entertainments Duty Act, 1923 contemplates that duty @50%
under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, sub-
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 652
652
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
653
section (2) of Section 3 would be payable. In respect of the first
part of sub-clause (ii) of Section 3(5)(a) of the Act, the
entertainment duty is 50% of 15% leviable under Section 3(1)(b)
of the Act. It is sub-section 3(2) of the Act which is required to be
interpreted. The said provision is in respect of charging of duty
at 50% of the duty fixed in Section 3(1)(b) of the Act to the specific
category of visitors to the amusement parks such as payment in
“lump sum as a subscription or contribution to any society”, or
“for a season ticket” or “for the right of admission to a series of
entertainments” or “any entertainment during a certain period
of time”. The writ petitioners do not fall in any of the four
categories. Category (a) is subscription or contribution in lump
sum to any society. The writ petitioners would not fall in such
category as the payment is not to any society. It is not the case of
writ petitioners that they have issued a season’s ticket to the
visitors. Category (d), that entry would be on charging 50% of
the duty fixed for any entertainment during a certain period of
time, depends upon the decision of the State Government and/or
Municipal Corporation to grant that relaxation to enable the writ
petitioners or such other amusement park owners to charge duty
at a lesser rate. [Para 12-15][660-B-H]
1.2 The amusement park is defined under Section 2(a-1) of
the Act to mean a place wherein various types of amusements
including games or rides or both are provided fairly, on a
permanent basis, on payment for admission. The payment for
admission is defined under Section 2(b) of the Act as the payment
made by a person having admitted to one part of a place of
entertainment and subsequently admitted to another part. Section
2(d) of the Act deals with admission to an entertainment which
includes admission to any place in which the entertainment is
held. It cannot be said that when a lumpsum amount is paid as a
right of admission for all rides and games, then it becomes
admission to series of entertainment. The writ petitioners issue
one ticket including one or more rides or games situated in one
compound. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that for every
ride or game, it is charging separately. The admission to
entertainment in terms of Section 2(d) of the Act includes all rides
and games which are provided by the service provider. The series
THE ST

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.