Inclusive definition of entertainment brings paid trade exhibitions within entertainment duty despite no conventional amusement elements.

An inclusive taxing definition of "entertainment" can extend beyond its ordinary meaning where the statute expressly covers exhibitions admitted for payment. Applying that approach, trade exhibitions with public character, registration charges, and monetary benefit to the organiser and exhibitors were treated as exhibitions open for consideration and therefore within the levy under the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act. The absence of musical performance, ramp shows, or other conventional amusement features was not decisive, and the textile-dome distinction was treated as fact-specific and inapplicable. The exhibitions were held exigible to entertainment duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the trade exhibitions organised by the petitioner amounted to an "entertainment" within section 2(a) of the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923 and were therefore exigible to entertainment duty under section 3 of the Act.

Analysis: Section 2(a) defines "entertainment" in inclusive terms and expressly brings within it any exhibition to which persons are admitted for payment. Section 2(b) gives a broad meaning to "payment for admission". The Court applied the settled approach that an inclusive taxing definition may extend beyond the ordinary meaning of the word and relied on the principle that an event with public character, admission for payment, and some element of gratification can fall within the levy. The nature of the exhibitions, the scale of participation, the registration charges, and the monetary benefit derived by the organiser and exhibitors showed that the events were exhibitions open to a segment of the public for consideration. The absence of a musical performance or ramp show was held not to be decisive. The relied-on distinction from the textile-dome case was treated as fact-specific and inapplicable on the facts before the Court.

Conclusion: The exhibitions were held to be "entertainment" under section 2(a) and were liable to entertainment duty under section 3; the challenge failed and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute uses an inclusive definition that expressly covers exhibitions admitted for payment, an organised exhibition having public character and yielding monetary benefit may fall within "entertainment" even without conventional amusement elements.

---