Negative equality cannot defeat a clear entertainment duty levy on water sports activity under the statutory charging scheme.

Article 14 does not support a refund or exemption claim based on negative equality where allegedly similar operators were not proceeded against; parity cannot be claimed to extend an illegality or non-enforcement to others. The article also states that the entertainment duty regime expressly taxed water sports activity as an activity, whether or not conducted within an amusement park, and the clear statutory text prevailed over legislative debate. The petitioners' own acknowledgement of liability and prior use of the concessional regime further undermined their challenge, and the unjust enrichment argument failed because the duty was statutorily payable by them.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners could claim refund or exemption from entertainment duty on the ground of Article 14 discrimination and negative equality because allegedly similar operators were not being proceeded against. (ii) Whether the levy of entertainment duty on the petitioners' water sports activities could be avoided on the basis of legislative debate or the contention that only amusement-park water activities were intended to be taxed.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners could claim refund or exemption from entertainment duty on the ground of Article 14 discrimination and negative equality because allegedly similar operators were not being proceeded against.

Analysis: The petitioners admitted that their activities were covered by the charging scheme and that they had earlier claimed the benefit of the statutory exemption and concessional regime. The Court found that they failed to establish that the Gateway of India operators or any other identified operators were similarly situated, and no such operators were impleaded. It reiterated that equality under Article 14 is a positive concept and cannot be invoked to compel the State to extend an illegality or irregularity to others. A claim for negative equality cannot sustain a writ for refund or non-recovery merely because another person may not have been assessed or recovered from.

Conclusion: The plea of discrimination and negative equality failed, and no refund could be granted on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy of entertainment duty on the petitioners' water sports activities could be avoided on the basis of legislative debate or the contention that only amusement-park water activities were intended to be taxed.

Analysis: The statutory scheme separately defined entertainment, place of entertainment, amusement park, and water sports activity, and the charging provision expressly subjected water sports activity, whether within or outside an amusement park, to duty. The Court held that the levy was on the activity and not on the entity conducting it. It further held that resort to legislative debates was unwarranted because the statutory text was clear. Since the petitioners' own case acknowledged liability under the Act and they had availed the statutory concession for the initial years, they could not later contend that their activities were outside the charging provision. The plea of unjust enrichment also failed because the duty was primarily payable by the petitioners under the statute and their licence conditions.

Conclusion: The statutory levy on the petitioners' water sports activities was upheld, and the challenge based on legislative intent failed.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to refund or other relief, and the writ petition failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 14 cannot be used to claim parity with persons who may have benefited from an alleged illegality or non-enforcement, and where the charging provision clearly levies duty on a specified activity, legislative debate cannot override the plain statutory text.

---