http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: GEETA ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/09/1983

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA VARADARAJAN, A. (J) THAKKAR, M.P. (J)

CITATION:  1983 AIR 1098            1983 SCR  (3) 812  1983 SCC  (4) 202        1983 SCALE  (2)275

ACT:      Uttar Pradesh  Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937- Sec. 2(3-  Definition of  Entertainment-Extremely wide-Video shows fall  in the  ambit of  s. 2(3)  and are  exigible  to entertainment tax  under  sec.  3.  When  a  show  would  be entertainment-Test laid down. .      Words and phrases- ’Entertainment’,

HEADNOTE:      The petitioners  opened  video  parlour  by  installing electronic machine  with video  screen and permitted persons to enter  the premises  without any charge to view a show on the video  which consisted  mainly  of  sports,  games  etc. played on  the screen of the video. The show lasting upto 30 seconds was  operated by  inserting SO  paise coin  into the video machine by an operator from the audience who wanted to operate the  video machine.  While one High Court was of the view that-the video games were included in the definition of entertainment and  were liable  to  entertainment  tax,  two other High Courts were of the opposite view. The petitioners filed the  present writ petitions contending that in view of the manner  in which  the video games were shown and also in view of  the fact  that these  games, sports etc. involved a great amount  of skill  for the  operator, the  video  games would not be an entertainment within the meaning of sub-sec, (3) of sec. 2.      Dismissing the petitions, ^      HELD: The  video show  is an  entertainment under  soc. 2(1) and therefore exigible to tax under sec. 3. [821 A-B]      A perusal  of the  various shades,  aspects, forms  and implications  of  the  word  ’entertainment  as  defined  in different  books   and  dictionaries  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-sec. (3) of sec. 2 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 any kind of amusement, game or sport. When

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

a number  of people  without any  admission fee enter a hall for entertainment  and enjoy  the games  it becomes a public show and the hall where the video is played becomes a public hall and amounts therefore to a 813 public exhibition  which is  squarely covered  by the  first limb (exhibitional)  of the  definition of  entertainment in sub-sec. (3) of sec. 2. [817 A-B, E-E]      Porritts &  Spencer (Asia)  Ltd. v.  State of  Haryana, [1979] 1  S.C.R. 545; Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (4th Edn; vol. 2. p. 916); Words and Phrases, judicially Defined (vol. 2, p.  206.207); Words and Phrases (Permanent Edn; vol. 14A, p. 353);  Reader’s Digest  Family Word  Finder  at  p.  264; Webster’s Third  New International  Dictionary; and  Concise English Dictionary by Hayward and Sparkes, referred to.      In  the  present  case  by  operating  the  video,  the operator of  the video  pays 50  paise per  30  seconds  for playing the  games, sports  and other  kind of  performances which are  shown on  the machine and which can be watched by interested spectators.  The circumstances  that no admission fee is  charged from  viewers seeing  the video  by  itself, however, cannot  defuse or  alter the  kind of entertainment deprived by  the person  who pays for playing the games. The operator of  video would deprive pleasure and be entertained regardless of  whether the  possesses skill  or not.  If  he possesses skill  he may derive more pleasure on less payment otherwise he  will have  to pay  but he will derive pleasure all the  same. That  he would  not pay  money if  it did not thrill, amuse,  and entertain  him, is obvious. Besides, the game brings  a substantial  return for  the person who makes available these facilities. [817 C-E, G-H]      Gopal Krishna Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., All L J, 1982 page 607 approved.      Harris Wilson v. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors., A.T.R. 1982 M.P.  at page 171 and H. T. Gursahaney v. State & Anr., 1982 (2)-vol. XIII (2), CLR 526 overruled.

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  : Writ Petition Nos. 1731, 1915, 2277, 3691,  7097, 9428/81  and 2121, 7430, 7431, 8349, 9319 of 1982.      (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India)      K. C. Dua, for the Petitioners.      B. P. Maheshwari, for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      FAZAL ALI,  J. What  appears to  be a  short and simple point has been the subject matter of a serious divergence of judicial opinion  between two  leading High  Courts  of  our country, namely  the Allahabad High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court  taking contrary  views which have to be resolved by us in the present writ 814 petitions.. The  short point  involved  in  these  petitions turns upon the interpretation of the word "Entertainment" as used in  section 2(3) of the Uttar Pradesh entertainment and Betting Tax  Act, 1937 (hereinafter to be referred to as the ’Act’).      The facts  of these  cases lie  within  a  very  narrow compass and may be stated thus:-      The first  petitioner is  a partnership  firm which had launched an  entertaining and  ingenious enterprise  for the running of a Video Parlour at 3, Chauhan Market, Delhi gate, Agra. The modus operandi of the petitioner was as follows. A

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

machine with  a video  screen is installed in the parlour of the petitioner.  The petitioner permits persons to enter the premises without  any charge  to view  a show  on the  video which consisted  mainly of  sports games  etc. played On the screen of  the video. According to the petitioner he did not Charge  any   admission  fee  but  the  Electronic  Machines imported from  Japan having  educational value  for  persons playing  the   games  were   meant  to  provide  educational entertainment by  showing sea  warfare, battle  field  space warfare sports  and many  other things  which were likely to provide both  education and  entertainment to  the  viewers, particularly to  young children.  The mechanism  for playing the machine was so designed that a coin of 50 naya paise was to be  inserted into  a strong box built within the machine, the keys of which were with the manufacturer. After the show was over a representative of the manufacturing company would come, open  the box,  collect the money and pay the share of the hirer-petitioner  out of the collected sale proceeds. It was further  alleged that no admission or gate entry fee was charged for  entering the  House or Parlour to watch or play the game  or for entering into the adjacent snack shops. The shows were  operated by an operator from the audience and SO paise coin  was inserted  into the  aforesaid box before the show could  start. The  charge of  inserting  the  coin  was realised only  from those  who wanted  to operate  the video machine at  the rate of SO paise for a show lasting up to 30 seconds.      The petitioners thus contended that the manner in which the game was shown to the viewers and operated by the person playing the  games  was  not  an  entertainment  within  the meaning of  section 2  (3) of  the  Act.  To  Buttress  this argument the petitioners cited the example of several States where identical  shows were  not exigible  to  entertainment tax. It is manifest that the manner and the mechanism 815 by which  the operation  of the  video  was  done  would  be eligible to  tax could not be determined merely because some other States  did not choose to charge any entertainment tax for the video shows.      The crux  of the  matter is  as to  whether or  not the show, the  details of  which have been described above falls within the  four corners  of the expression "entertainment". Sub-section 3  of section  2 of  the Act  may  be  extracted thus:-           "entertainment"  includes  any  exhibitional,      performance, amusement,  game or  short  to  which      persons are admitted for Payment."      It is  true that  a part  of the video show was of some educational value  but that  by itself would be no answer to the  application   of  Sub-section   3.  The  definition  as extracted above  is extremely  wide so as to take within its fold and  includes the  kind of  show which was displayed by the petitioners in this case.      Before  explaining   the  section   we  would  like  to ascertain  the  correct  meaning  and  import  of  the  word ’entertainment’  (which   is  neither  a  scientific  nor  a technical  term)   as  used  in  the  popular  sense  or  as understood in  common parlance.  This was held by this Court in the  case of  Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd v. State of Haryana.(1) In  Stroud’s Judicial  Dictionary (4th Edn, vol. 2. p. 916) the word ’entertainment’ has been defined thus:           "Entertainment ...  for a  PUBLIC OR  SPECIAL      occasion"... is an entertainment in the sense of a      gathering of persons for entertainment."           "Entertainment" (Small  Lotteries and  Gaming

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

    Act 1956 (c. 45, s. 4 (1) included a tombola drive      alone with out accompanying festivities.           "The monologue  or patter of a comedian, even      if delivered  at an  entertainment provided  by an      institution   whose    activities    are    partly      educational,   was   held   to   be   a   "variety      entertainment" within the meaning of the Section." 816 Similarly in  words and Phrases, Judicially Defined (vol. 2, p. 206-207) the word entertainment has been defined thus :-           "Entertainment is  something  connected  with      the enjoyment  of refreshment-rooms,  tables,  and      the like.  lt is  something beyond refreshment; it      is  the   accommodation  provided,   whether  that      includes a musical or other amusement or not". Similarly in  Words and Phrases (Permanent Edn; Vol. 14A, p. 353) ’entertainment’ has been defined thus:-           "An entertainment  is a  source or  means  of      amusement; a  diverting performance,  especially a      public performance,  as a  concert, drama,  or the      like."           "Entertainment" denotes that which selves for      amusement,  and   "amusement"  is   defined  as  a      pleasure able  occupation of  the senses,  or that      which furnishes it, as dancing, sports, or music." Likewise in  Reader’s Digest  Family Word  Finder at  p-263. ’entertainment’ has been defined thus:      "Entertainment   amusement,   diversion,   distraction, recreation,  fun,   play,  good   time,  pastime,   novelty; pleasure, enjoyment, satisfaction." In Webster’s  Third New  International Dictionary  the  word ’entertainment’ has been defined at p. 757 thus:-           "entertainment  -   the  act   of  diverting,      amusing,  or   causing  someone’s   time  to  pass      agreeably.           "Something that  diverts, amuses, or occupies      the attention agreeably.      A public  performance  designed  to  divert  or  amuse. Similarly in  the Concise  English Dictionary by Hayward and Sparkes the word entertainment’ has been defined thus:-           "the  art   of   entertaining,   amusing   or      diverting, the  pleasure afforded  to the  mind by      anything interesting, amusement, other performance      intended to amuse." 817      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  any kind  of amusement, game or sport. It cannot  be disputed  in the  present  case that by  operating the  video, By  the operator of the video pays SO  paise per  30 seconds for playing the games, sports and other  kind of  performances  which  are  shown  on  the machine and  which can  be watched by interested spectators. It was  vehemently argued by the Codasel for the petitioners that no  admission fee  is charged  from viewers  seeing the video. That  circumstances by itself, however, cannot defuse or alter the kind of entertainment derived by the person who pays for  playing the  games. That he would not pay money if

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

it did  not thrill,  amuse, and  entertain him,  is obvious. Translated into  actual practice,  if the  operators who are from the  audience play the video for one hour the amount of money collected  would be  Rs. 60 and if the video is played for 3-4  hours a  day, the total amount comes to Rs. 180-240 per day  which is doubtless a substantial amount for showing the video  by way  of an entertainment because when a number of people  without  any  admission  fee  enter  a  hall  for entertainment and  enjoy the  games it becomes a public show and the hall where the video is played becomes a public hall and amounts  therefore  to  a  public  exhibition  which  is squarely covered  by the  first limb  (exhibitional) of  the definition  of  entertainment  in  Sub-section  3  extracted above.      It was  next argued  that to  play these  games, sports etc. involves  a great  amount of skill for the operator and therefore it  would  not  be  an  entertainment  within  the meaning of  Sub-section  3.  This  argument  appears  to  be without any substance because he would drive pleasure and be entertained regardless of whether he possesses skill or not. If he  possesses skill  he may  derive more pleasure on less payment otherwise  he will  have to  pay but  he will derive pleasure  all   the  same.   Besides,  the   game  brings  a substantial return  for the person who makes available these facilities. In  these circumstances  it is impossible for us to hold  that such an exhibition falls beyond the purview of the word entertainment as envisaged in sub-section 3. 818           Furthermore,   clauses   regarding   payment   for admission includes:- .           "Any payment  for a  programme or synopsis of      an entertainment."           "Any  payment   for  any  purpose  whatsoever      connected with  an entertainment which a person is      required to  make as  a condition  of attending or      continuing to attend the entertainment in addition      to the  payment, if  any,  for  admission  to  the      entertainment."      Section 3  which  is  the  charging  section  runs      thus:-           "There  shall  be  levied  and  paid  on  all      payments for  admission to any entertainment a tax      (hereinafter referred to as entertainment tax)."      Section 3  of tho  Act which  has been extracted above, clearly applies  to the  facts of this case because here the payment is based on lump sum basis calculated at the rate of SO paise per 30 seconds.      Thus, on  a consideration  of the  legal connotation of the word  ’entertainment as  defined in  various books,  and other  circumstances   of  the   case  as  also  on  a  true interpretation of  the word  as defined  in s.  2 (3) of the Act, it  follows that the show must pass the following tests to fall within the ambit of the aforesaid section:      1.    that  the show,  performance, game or sport,           etc. must contain a public colour in that the           show should  be open  to public  in  a  hall,           theatre or  any other  place where members of           the public are invited or attend the show.      2.    that  the  show  may  provide  any  kind  of           amusement  whether  sport,  game  or  even  a           performance which  requires  some  amount  of           skill.           In some  of the  cases, it has been held that           even holding  of a  tombola in  a  club  hall           amounts to entertainment although the playing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

         of tombola  does, to  some extent, involves a           little skill. 819      3.    that  even if  admission to  the hall may be           free  but   if  the  exhibitor  derives  some           benefit in  terms of money it would be deemed           to be an entertainment.      4.   that the duration of the show or the identity           of the  person who  operates the  machine and           derives pleasure  or entertained  or that the           operator   who    pays   him    self    feels           entertainment is wholly irrelevant in judging           the    actual    meaning    of    the    word           ’entertainment’ as  used in  s. 2  (3) of the           Act. So also the fact that the income derived           from the  show  is  shared  by  one  or  more           persons who run the show.      The Allahabad  High Court  in the case of Gopal Krishna Agarwal, v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors(1) which was also a case  under the  Act,  held  that  entertainment  tax  was leviable on  video games.  The High Court has very carefully analysed sub-section  3 of s. 2 of the Act and the import of the word ’entertainment’ and observes as follows:-           "The context in which the word ’includes, has      been used  in the  definition clauses  of the  Act      does not indicate that the Legislature intended to      put a  restriction or  a limitation  on words like      ’entertainment’ or ’admission to an entertainment’      or ’payment  for admission’.  With the  advance of      civilization and scientific developments new forms      of entertainment  have come  into existence. Video      Games are  probably the  latest additions  to  the      means of  entertainment. These games require skill      and precision  as so many other games do. They are      a source  of amusement  and enjoyment to those who      participate in  the games. Others who stand by and      watch also  derive  some  pleasure  and  amusement      though not  to the  same degree.  Admission to the      premises where  the Video  Machines are  installed      may be  free but payment is admittedly made if one      wants to  play the game. The money charged for use      of  the   Video  Machine   is  an   admission   to      entertainment and  the payment  made by the person      who uses the Machine is the payment for admission.      In any  case it is a payment for admission. In any      case it is a payment 820      connected with  entertainment which  a  person  is      required to  make as  a condition of attending the      entertainment      We  find   ourselves  in   entire  agreement  with  the observations of  the Court  and fully  approve of  the ratio decendi of  this case  . The  Allahabad High Court has given almost the  same reasons  as given by us in the earlier part of the judgment.      It is  true that in the case of Harrish Wilson v. State of Madhya  Pradesh and Ors.(1) the Madhya Pradesh High Court had taken a contrary view and held as follows:-           "Therefore, what  entertains a  person in the      video games parlour is his own performance and not      the exhibition,  performance, amusement,  game  or      any sport  offered by the petitioners. The payment      made by  a person  to another  to provide him with      tools  for   deriving  pleasure   from   his   own      performance with  the help of the tools can not be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

    held to  be payment to that another for ’admission      to entertainment’  as contemplated  by the Act. In      our opinion, therefore, it cannot be held that the      petitioners  receive  ’payment  for  admission  to      entertainment’, when they collect amounts inserted      by the persons in the slot."      And the Gujarat High Court in N. T. Gursahaney v. State and Anr.(2)  has taken  a similar view. Apart from the wrong line of  reasoning adopted  by the Madhya Pradesh High Court it seems  to have  completely overlooked  certain  important aspects of  the question  which we  have dealt  with in  our judgment.  Moreover   even  the  language  of  the  charging provision of  the Act  which fell for interpretation in that case does  not appear  to be absolutely in pari-materia with the language  of the various sections of the U. P. Act. Even so the  pivotal conclusions  derived by  the Madhya  Pradesh High Court  and the  Gujarat High Court do not appeal to us. The mere  fact that  payment is  not made  at  the  time  of entering the  premises is  irrelevant.  Payment  made  at  a later, stage  by inserting  a coin  is nonetheless for being admitted to  a place  of entertainment.  Thus the  fee being charged in a different manner at a different stage is in any case for  providing entertainment.  We, therefore,  with due respect to the High Courts, disapprove their decisions. 821      For the  reasons given  above we hold that the decision of the  Allahabad High  Court is  correct and we hereby over rule the  decisions of  the Gujarat  and Madhya Pradesh High Courts. In  our opinion,  the video show in the instant case is clearly  exigible to  tax under section 3 of the Act. The Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. H.S.K.                                  Petitions dismissed. 822