https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277992 Clauses (c) and (d) of section 3(1) of the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, as amended in 1983, were invalid because the levy on touring cinemas and video exhibitions operated on a notional consolidated or lump sum basis rather than on actual entertainment. The court reasoned that an entertainment duty is constitutionally valid only where the tax, in substance, attaches to the act of entertainment as the taxable event. Since the amended provisions were linked to gross collection capacity, assumed occupancy and maximum shows, they were disconnected from the entertainment actually held and could not be sustained under the State List entry. The impugned clauses were therefore held ultra vires and struck down. en-us Tue, 28 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Jan 2019 14:45:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277992 Clauses (c) and (d) of section 3(1) of the Bombay Entertainment Duty Act, as amended in 1983, were invalid because the levy on touring cinemas and video exhibitions operated on a notional consolidated or lump sum basis rather than on actual entertainment. The court reasoned that an entertainment duty is constitutionally valid only where the tax, in substance, attaches to the act of entertainment as the taxable event. Since the amended provisions were linked to gross collection capacity, assumed occupancy and maximum shows, they were disconnected from the entertainment actually held and could not be sustained under the State List entry. The impugned clauses were therefore held ultra vires and struck down. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277992