Broad entertainment tax definition upheld for aerial ropeway temple rides; State competence confirmed under pith and substance doctrine.

A broad statutory definition of "entertainment" under the Himachal Pradesh Entertainments Duty Act was held to cover carriage of passengers by aerial ropeway to a temple, because the gondola ride itself involved amusement and thrill and the enumeration was intended to expand, not narrow, the charge; ejusdem generis was therefore rejected. The levy was also upheld as within the State's legislative competence: applying pith and substance, the duty was traceable to the power to tax entertainments and amusements, while the separate ropeway legislation regulated communication and did not bar taxation under the entertainments duty law. The challenge to the levy was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether carriage of passengers by aerial ropeway to the temple constitutes "entertainment" under the Himachal Pradesh Entertainments Duty Act, 1968. (ii) Whether the State has legislative competence to levy entertainment duty on aerial ropeways by amendment to the entertainments duty law, notwithstanding the separate ropeway legislation.

Issue (i): Whether carriage of passengers by aerial ropeway to the temple constitutes "entertainment" under the Himachal Pradesh Entertainments Duty Act, 1968.

Analysis: The definition of entertainment in the Act was construed broadly. The statutory expression included exhibition, performance, amusement, game, sport, race and aerial ropeway, and the Court held that the experience of travelling by gondola was itself a form of amusement and thrill. The principle of ejusdem generis was rejected because the legislative intent was to give the term a wider scope and the enumerated items were not confined to a single narrow genus.

Conclusion: The aerial ropeway activity amounts to entertainment and falls within the charging provision.

Issue (ii): Whether the State has legislative competence to levy entertainment duty on aerial ropeways by amendment to the entertainments duty law, notwithstanding the separate ropeway legislation.

Analysis: Entry 62 of List II authorises taxes on entertainments and amusements, while Entry 13 recognises ropeways as a mode of communication. The Court applied the doctrine of pith and substance and held that the impugned levy was traceable to the taxing power under Entry 62. The absence of a taxing provision in the ropeway legislation did not bar levy under the entertainments duty enactment, because the two statutes operated in different fields and the levy was on entertainment, not on ropeway regulation.

Conclusion: The State had legislative competence to impose the entertainment duty on aerial ropeways.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the levy failed, the impugned entertainment duty on the aerial ropeway was upheld, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dominant character of the levy is entertainment, the State may validly tax it under the entertainment entry, and a broad statutory definition expressly including aerial ropeway cannot be cut down by ejusdem generis when the legislative intent is to enlarge the scope of the charge.

---