TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 457
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ountry as well as for foreign buyers visiting the show. The object of doing so is to make India and especially the city of Mumbai a major international trading center for diamonds and other gems and jewellery. IIJS is stated to be the second largest jewellery show in Asia and is stated to be an official platform of the country for showcasing the manufacturing capabilities of India's gems and jewellery sector. Over eight hundred leading companies both within and outside the country participate in the show. According to the petitioner, an internationally recognized survey agency, Synovate, estimated that orders worth about Rs. 5,200 crores were placed for exhibitors during IIJS 2011. According to the petitioner a high registration charge is fixed to encourage serious business visitors to attend the shows, IIJS and IIJS Signature events being business to business show for which the general public and individual consumers cannot register. In the past, the petitioner made payments of entertainment duty under the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923. This according to the petitioner was under the mistaken belief that the IIJS and IIJS Signature events are exigible to entertainment d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al amount of Rs. 1.32 crores as entertainment duty in respect of IIJS 2011. In writ proceedings instituted before this court (Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council v. State of Maharashtra Writ Petition No. 4527 of 2012), an order was passed on May 10, 2012 setting aside the order of the Additional Collector on the ground that the petitioner had not been heard in support of its contentions, including on the jurisdiction of the Collector to impose entertainment duty. The third respondent was directed to pass a speaking order after furnishing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Following this, an order was passed by the third respondent on June 27, 2012, confirming a demand for duty in the amount of Rs. 1.32 crores. The order of the Collector was once again challenged in a writ petition (Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council v. State of Maharashtra Writ Petition 6544 of 2012) under article 226. By a judgment dated July 20, 2012, the order of the Collector was once again set aside with a direction to the Collector to pass a fresh order after adjudicating on the question as to whether the trade show constitutes an "entertainment" within the meaning of the Bombay ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for payment; (ii) In respect of the events organized by the petitioner, there is a sale of tickets and the events can be termed as exhibitions. The term "entertainment" is defined to include any exhibition to which persons are admitted for payment; (iii) The appellant charges a high entry fee in respect of the events in question and the exhibitors derive benefit in terms of money; (iv) The petitioner had paid entertainment duty in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 and the State Government had in July 2005 granted an exemption to the petitioner for a similar programme. The Divisional Commissioner, however, accepted the contention of the petitioner that 6081 passes and not 7000 passes have been distributed to the exhibitors. The total amount of entertainment duty payable for IIJS 2011 was computed at Rs. 45.40 lacs. Since the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 62.76 lacs with the Additional Collector and an amount of Rs. 34.32 lacs with the appeal, the Additional Collector was directed to refund the amount of Rs. 34.32 lacs and Rs. 17.36 lacs with a further direction to compute the amount of entertainment duty payable in respect of IIJS 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... machinery to challenge an order of assessment and hence, the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised. On the merits, it has been submitted, that the events organized by the petitioner fall within the scope of an "entertainment". Section 2(a) defines the expression "entertainment" to include any exhibition to which persons are admitted for payment. The events organized by the petitioner, it is urged, fall within the inclusive definition of the expression, since what the petitioner essentially organizes is an exhibition to which persons are admitted for payment. It has been urged that an inclusive definition is comprehensive in its nature and character and any exhibition that levies an entry fee for its visitors and which results in monetary gratification of participation would fall within the definition of an "entertainment" under the Act. The affidavit of the State Government also states that on May 30, 2011, the Government rejected the application of the petitioner to exempt it from the payment of entertainment duty. It has been stated that a Government Resolution dated December 16, 1971 exempts bona fide and pure art exhibitions from the paymen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertainment involves gratification and once the element of gratification exists, the liability to pay entertainment duty would arise. The Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923, is an Act to impose a duty in respect of admission to entertainments in the State. The expression "entertainment" is defined as follows:- "2(a) 'entertainment' includes any exhibition, performance, amusement, game or sport to which persons are admitted for payment, or, in the case of television exhibition with the aid of any type of antenna with a cable network attached to it or cable television or Direct-to-Home (DTH) Broadcasting Service, for which persons are required to make payment by way of contribution or subscription or installation and connection charges or any other charges collected in any manner whatsoever, but does not include magic show and temporary amusement including games and rides. Explanation:-For the purposes of this clause:- (i) the expression 'exhibition' includes any exhibition by cinematograph including video exhibition or television exhibition with the aid of any type of antenna with a cable network att....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(3) of section 10A provides a remedy of a revision' to the State Government against an appellate order of the Commissioner. The Supreme Court considered the nature of entertainment duty in the context of the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937 in Geeta Enterprises v. State of U. P. [1983] 4 SCC 202. Section 2(3) of the Act defined an "entertainment" to include any exhibitional performance, amusement, game or sport to which persons are admitted for payment. After referring to the dictionary meaning of the expression "entertainment", the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "A perusal of the various shades, aspects, forms and implications of the word 'entertainment' as defined in the aforesaid books clearly leads to an irresistible inference that the word 'entertainment' has been used in a very wide sense so as to include within its ambit, entertainment of any kind including one which may be purely educative. Sub-section (3) itself by using the word 'entertainment' as 'any exhibitional, performance, amusement, game or sport to which persons are admitted for payment' has extended the scope of entertainment to expressly include....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the primary object with which the dome was put up by the petitioner was the display of its goods and to promote its sales and there was nothing in the nature of organized entertainment in the display of the fabrics. The court noted that a token payment of Rs. 2 obtained from a person visiting the dome was nothing other than a part advanced payment towards purchases that may be made. The payment made by a person visiting the dome was therefore not a payment for admission much less a payment for admission in which the entertainment was held. In a judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Vasant Madhav Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra [2001] (Supp.) Bom. C.R. 175, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Geeta Enterprises [1983] 4 SCC 202 has been followed and it has been held that the expression "entertainment" cannot be understood in a restrictive sense, but must be given a width of meaning which the Legislature has understood while using the expression. In a judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in His Highness Maharaja of Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan [1972] WLN 186, it has been held while interpreting the provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 14th February, 2013 states that for the Signature 2013 event which was to be held at the Bombay Convention and Exhibition Center approximately 1,082 booths were expected to be put up with a participation of approximately 567 exhibitors who would display different designs of jewellery. The major exhibitors in the exhibition were to be national and international jewellery and diamond retailers, manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and exporters. In the additional affidavit it has been stated that the IIJS events do not involve any performance in the nature of a ramp show or musical performance. However, the petitioner has since 2010 been also organizing the India International Jewellery Week (IIJW) where participating manufacturers, designers, design houses, choreographers showcase their collection of jewellery to national and international buyers and customers, where the collection of jewellery is displayed using models by conducting ramp shows, the event being sponsored by jewellery manufacturers, retailers, design houses and other corporates. Entry is stated to be by invitation with the sponsorship being invited to guests. Si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istration fee which is collected is of a completely different nature and character than what was involved in the case before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The nature of the event, the character of the goods displayed, the benefit which is derived by the exhibitor in terms of money and the nature of the budget both of the organizer and the exhibitors are indicative of the fact that the exhibition in the present case to which admission is made against the payment of money falls within the definition of the expression "entertainment" in section 2(a). Reliance was sought to be placed on behalf of the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. v. State of U. P. [2005] 139 STC 537 (SC); [2005] 2 SCC 515. In that decision, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the State Legislatures were competent to levy a luxury tax on tobacco and tobacco products by treating them as "luxuries" within the meaning of entry 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Entry 62, List II, speaks of taxes on luxuries including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling. The Supreme Court observed that if luxuries are understood as me....