1. Liability of video game parlours for entertainment tax under the M.P. Entertainments Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 562
1999(4) Supreme 452
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
S.P. Bharucha, B.N. Kirpal, S. Rajendra Babu, S.S. Mohammed Quadri & M.B. Shah, JJ.
State of M.P. & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Smt. Abha Sethi etc. -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4372 of 1984
With
C.A. Nos. 4790/84, 4594/84, 4595/84, 4596/84
Decided on 28-4-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : S.K. Agnihotri, Mrs. Madhur Dadlani, Sapam Biswajit Mistei, Advocates.
For the Petitioner in W.P. No. 12221/85 : Sarwa Mitter, Advocate for M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co., Advocates.
For the Respondent : S.K. Gambhir and R.B. Misra, Advocates (NP).
Important Points
Important Point
Video Parlours are liable to entertainment tax under M.P. Entertainments Duty and Advertisement Tax Act.
Video Parlours are liable to entertainment tax under M.P. Entertainments Duty and Advertisement Tax Act.
Subject
Taxation Law - Entertainment Tax
Act Referred
MADHYA PRADESH ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY AND ADVERTISEMENT TAX ACT: .
Headnote
M.P. Entertainments Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936-Video parlour-Fee charged in providing for entertainment - Video parlours are liable to entertainment tax-Geetha Enterprizes & Ors. v. State of U.P., 1983(3) SCR 812 does not require reconsideration. (Paras 3, 4 & 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether payment for video game tools constitutes payment for admission to entertainment or merely payment for tools to derive pleasure from one's own performance. (Para 1 )
3. Payment made by inserting coins is considered payment for admission to a place of entertainment, regardless of the timing or method of payment. (Para 2 )
4. Payment via coin insertion in a video parlour constitutes payment for admission to a place of entertainment, rendering it liable for entertainment tax. (Para 2 )
5. Appeals allowed, High Court orders set aside, and writ petitions dismissed. (Para 5 )
6. Does payment made by inserting a coin into a video game machine constitute payment for admission to entertainment?
Yes. The court held that payment made at a later stage by inserting a coin is nonetheless payment for being admitted to a place of entertainment, regardless of the timing or manner of the fee. (Para 2 )
7. Is the entertainment in a video parlour considered the user's own performance or a service provided by the proprietor?
The court held that the fee charged, regardless of the method, is for providing entertainment, rejecting the argument that the user is merely paying for tools to derive pleasure from their own performance. (Para 2 )
Order
The State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal against orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that followed its earlier judgment in W.P. No. 567/81, Harrish Wilson v. State of M.P., and held that video games located in video parlours were not liable to entertainment tax under the M.P. Entertainments Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936, on the ground that what entertains a person in the video parlour is his own performance and not the exhibition, performance, amusement, game or any sport offered by the proprietor of the video parlour. The payment that was made was only to provide the prayer with tools for deriving pleasure from his own performance and that payment did not amount to a payment for admission to an entertainment.
2. The judgment in the case of Harrish Wilson was noticed by this Court in the case of Geetha Enterprises & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.1 and it was held that important aspects had been completely overlooked. The pivotal conclusions reached in that judgment did not appeal to this Court. The mere fact that payment was not made at the time of entering the video parlour was irrelevant; payment made at a later stage by inserting a coin was nonetheless for being admitted to a place of entertainment. The fee being charged in a different manner at a different stage was in any case for providing entertainment. The decision in Harrish Wilson’s case was, therefore,in terms disapproved of.
3. When the special leave petitions out of which these appeals arise came up for hearing, a Division Bench of this Court,on 5th November, 1984, observed that the view taken in the case of Geetha Enterprises required reconsideration.
4. The case of Geetha Enterprises has been followed by this Court in Standard Games & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.2. In any event, we have read the judgment in the case of Geetha Enterprises and are in agreement therewith. No reconsideration thereof is, in our view, required.
5. Following the judgment in the case of Geetha Enterprises, the appeals are allowed and the orders under appeal are set aside. The writ petitions upon which those orders were passed are dismissed. No order as to costs.
(C.R.) Appeals allowed.
************
