Alternative remedy and entertainment tax principles bar tax on museum admission where amusement is only incidental.

A statutory appeal did not, by itself, bar writ jurisdiction where the dispute raised no factual controversy and turned on interpretation of the Act, so the writ was entertained. On the tax issue, "entertainment" was construed in its ordinary sense and required an exhibition arranged to provide amusement or gratification. A museum, being primarily educational and historical and used for study, preservation and research, was not converted into entertainment merely because visitors might derive incidental amusement. The admission charges were therefore not liable to entertainment tax, and the taxing authority had no jurisdiction to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be declined on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy; and whether a museum charging admission fees falls within the definition of "entertainment" so as to attract entertainment tax under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition should be declined on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The existence of a statutory appeal does not, by itself, oust writ jurisdiction. The controversy involved no disputed facts and turned on interpretation of the statutory provisions. In these circumstances, the Court found no reason to non-suit the appellant merely because an alternative remedy was available.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on alternative remedy was rejected and the writ was entertained on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether a museum charging admission fees falls within the definition of "entertainment" so as to attract entertainment tax under the Act.

Analysis: The term "entertainment" must be understood in its ordinary sense, though the statutory definition is inclusive. For an exhibition to amount to entertainment, it must be displayed with a view to provide amusement or gratification to visitors. The Court held that a museum is primarily an educational and historical , intended for study, preservation and research, and any amusement derived by visitors is merely incidental. On that footing, the museum was not organised as a place of entertainment and the admission fee could not be subjected to entertainment tax. The taxing authority therefore lacked jurisdiction to proceed.

Conclusion: A museum of this nature is not an "entertainment" within the Act, and the admission charges are not liable to entertainment tax; the action of the taxing authority was unauthorised.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded, and the impugned assessment proceedings, penalty order and notice were set aside, with a prohibition against further action under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A museum does not become "entertainment" merely because visitors may incidentally derive amusement from it; to fall within the taxing entry, the exhibition must be arranged with the object of providing amusement or gratification to visitors.

---