TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pecial leave involves the question as to whether entertainment tax was payable by the appellant in respect of a fashion show held at Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh on July 9, 2000 at St. Andrews Inter College for the selection of "Mr. Gorakhpur" and "Miss Gorakhpur". As it would appear from the materials on record, the appellant was found to be the organiser of the aforesaid fashion show which had been held without the permission of the District Magistrate. On the basis of enquiry, it was found that entertainment tax had not been paid for performing the aforesaid fashion show and accordingly a show cause notice was issued to the appellant which was replied to by the appellant. Not being satisfied with the explanation given, the District M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....initiated by Ms. Neetu Nathaniel (respondent No. 7 herein) for establishing an Institute of Art, Fashion Designing and Modelling at Gorakhpur in collaboration with the respondent No. 8, Smt. S. Mishra, proprietor of the Cambridge Intertia Group. Another stand taken by the appellant in the reply to the show cause notice was that Miss Neetu Nathaniel was the Director and Smt. S. Mishra was the convener of the show and that the entire programme had been conducted under the direction of Miss Neetu Nathaniel. In his reply, the appellant requested the District Magistrate to issue notice to Miss Neetu Nathaniel who could enlighten him as to the alleged collection of money against tickets sold and funds collected from the organisers. Since the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2002 in the Allahabad High Court. The same was taken up for disposal on February 22, 2005 and on behalf of the writ petitioner/appellant herein, it was sought to be reiterated that the writ petitioner/appellant was only the choreographer and had no function in holding the fashion show. It was also urged that the programme in its entirety was charitable in nature and being for an educational purpose, was exempted under section 11(3) of the 1979 Act. Negating the claim of the writ-petitioner/appellant, the High Court held that a fashion show could not be said to be in aid of education and was only meant to entertain the public. On the said finding, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition against which the appellant filed S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. Dwivedi submitted that from the said advertisement it would be clear that while Cambridge Intertia Group as an Institute of Art, Fashion Designing and Modelling was presenting the fashion show, respondent No. 7 was the director, respondent No. 8 was the programme manager and the appellant was the programme director and choreographer on the occasion which was to be attended by a Minister of the State Government together with various persons shown as the sponsors of the programme. Mr. Dwivedi also submitted that since the Minister was the chief guest at the fashion show, various arrangements had been made so that the programme could be conducted safely and without any disturbance. Furthermore, one of th....