Broad definition of entertainment upheld for coin-operated video games; payment to play was treated as tax-triggering admission.

The SC construed "entertainment" broadly under the Uttar Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937, holding that a public video game or similar amusement falls within the definition when persons are admitted on payment, even if no entrance fee is charged at the door. Payment made later to operate the machine was treated as payment for admission to entertainment, and the educational element, skill involved, duration of play, or method of collection did not alter the statutory character of the activity. The contrary views of the Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat High Courts were disapproved, and the Allahabad High Court view was approved, leaving the activity liable to entertainment tax.

---

---

Issues: Whether a video parlour showing games on a machine for payment through insertion of coins constituted "entertainment" under section 2(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937, so as to attract entertainment tax under section 3.

Analysis: The definition of "entertainment" was construed broadly and held to include any exhibition, performance, amusement, game or sport to which persons are admitted for payment. The fact that no entry fee was charged at the door did not matter where money was paid to operate the machine and derive amusement from the show. The Court held that the show was open to the public, involved amusement and game, and produced monetary gain for the exhibitors. The educational element, the skill involved in playing, the duration of the show, and the manner in which payment was collected were held to be irrelevant to the statutory character of the activity. The contrary views of the Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat High Courts were disapproved, while the Allahabad High Court view was approved.

Conclusion: The video show was an entertainment within section 2(3) and the payments made for operating it were payments for admission to entertainment under section 3. The levy of entertainment tax was upheld in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the activity fell within the charging provision and remained liable to entertainment tax.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a public video game or similar amusement is made available on payment, the statutory concept of entertainment includes the activity even if entry is free and the payment is collected at a later stage for operation of the machine.

---