S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. This batch of writ petitions challenge the vires of the second explanation to Section 2(m) of the Delhi Entertainment and Betting Tax Act (“DEBT Act” or “the Act”), introduced with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998 by amendment (Notification No. F.14(9)/LA-2012/CONS 2 LAWW/148 hereafter “impugned notification” or “impugned amendment”) dated 01.10.2012. Section 2(m) defines “payment for admission” and through the impugned provision payments made in lieu of advertisements commensurate to (i) sponsorship (ii) value of goods supplied and (iii) value of services rendered were included. All the petitioners seek directions that the exaction of these amounts as tax is unenforceable and in some cases, seek refund of amounts paid under protest. They also impeach the retrospective operation of the amendment, through the impugned notification. Brief Facts

2. The petitioner in WP 2563/2013, Fashion Design Council of India (hereafter “FDCI”) is a registered society created for the purpose of promoting and developing the Indian fashion industry especially in the areas of manufacturing, design, marketing and distribution. For these underlying purposes, FDCI, a non