1992 (12) TMI 219 - SC - Indian Laws

Classification of Theatres Upheld Under Bengal Amusement Tax Act

The Supreme Court held that the classification between amateur and professional theatres in the notification under the Bengal Amusement Tax Act did not ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the notification issued on 31st March 1984 under Section 8 of the Bengal Amusement Tax Act, 1922.2. Whether the classification between amateur and professional theatres in the notification violates Article 14 of the Constitution.3. Whether the amended Section 8 of the Act allows for exemptions based on non-monetary gains.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Notification Issued on 31st March 1984 Under Section 8 of the Bengal Amusement Tax Act, 1922:The primary issue was whether the notification issued by the Government of West Bengal on 31st March 1984, exempting performances organized by amateur theatres from entertainment tax, was beyond the power conferred by Section 8 of the Bengal Amusement Tax Act, 1922, as amended in 1981. The notification aimed to exempt performances organized by bonafide group theatres, amateur theatres, or amateur jatra formed exclusively for cultural activities and not for monetary gains. The High Court held that this classification was unreasonable and did not serve the legislative objective of Section 8, thus declaring it ultra vires.2. Whether the Classification Between Amateur and Professional Theatres in the Notification Violates Article 14 of the Constitution:The High Court found that the classification based on the engagement of paid artists was arbitrary and did not serve the legislative objective. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that 'equality means equality in similar circumstances between the same class of persons for the same purpose and objective.' The Court emphasized that classification amongst groups performing shows for monetary gains and cultural activities is not arbitrary as long as it is reasonable. The distinction between amateur and professional groups based on monetary gains is real and intelligible, and thus, the classification is valid. The Court cited precedents like Orient Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. v. The Union of India and Gopal Narain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh to support the validity of such classifications.3. Whether the Amended Section 8 of the Act Allows for Exemptions Based on Non-Monetary Gains:The High Court found an infirmity in the notification, arguing that the amended Section 8 did not provide the power to grant exemptions based on non-monetary gains. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the amended Section 8 retained the objective of exempting any entertainment for social, educational, and scientific purposes. The conditions for exemption, which were previously specified by the legislature, were now left to be determined by the State Government. The Court held that this does not preclude the State from specifying conditions similar to those in the unamended section. The exercise of power by the State Government, as long as it does not contravene the legislative field, cannot be deemed invalid.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the classification between amateur and professional theatres is valid and does not violate Article 14. The notification issued on 31st March 1984 is within the power conferred by the amended Section 8 of the Bengal Amusement Tax Act, 1922. The appeal filed by the State of West Bengal was allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside. The Court emphasized that the distinction based on monetary gains is reasonable and serves the legislative objective of promoting social, educational, and cultural activities.