Certificate requirement under entertainment tax law upheld as a valid anti-evasion measure, with directions for workable implementation.

Section 4A(6) of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, requiring a Form XC certificate with the return, was upheld as valid because it was directly connected to the show-wise tax scheme and aimed at preventing evasion by verifying days on which no show was held. The challenge based on vagueness and impossibility of compliance failed, as the provision was not ultra vires merely because its implementation needed administrative clarification. At the same time, the court directed the State to prescribe the competent authority, the issuance procedure, the corresponding duty to issue the certificate, and a remedy for refusal or delay so the provision could operate effectively.

---

---

Issues: Whether sub-section (6) of section 4A of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958, requiring production of a certificate in Form XC with the return, was liable to be struck down as ultra vires on the ground of vagueness or impossibility of compliance, and whether directions were required to make the provision workable.

Analysis: The tax scheme under section 4A levies tax on each show and the return mechanism under the Rules is intended to reflect the number of shows actually conducted. The certificate requirement was introduced to prevent evasion by verifying days on which no show was held. The provision was held to have a direct nexus with the statutory scheme and to be necessary for effective implementation. The absence of a clear procedure for identifying the competent authority and for issuance of the certificate, however, created a need for administrative directions to operationalise the provision.

Conclusion: Sub-section (6) of section 4A was upheld as valid and not ultra vires, as it was incidental to and necessary for preventing tax evasion. The challenge to the provision failed, but directions were issued to the State Government to prescribe the competent authority, the procedure for issuance of the certificate, the corresponding obligation to issue it, and a remedy in case of refusal or delay.

Final Conclusion: The statutory provision was sustained, while ancillary directions were issued to ensure its practical enforcement.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal provision that is reasonably connected with the levy and is necessary to prevent evasion will not be struck down merely because its implementation requires procedural clarification; instead, the provision may be upheld with suitable directions to make it workable.

---