Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and K. L. Pandey, J.
CALICO MILLS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 320 Of 1960
Decided On : 12/19/1960
ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY - C. P. AND BERAR ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY ACT, 1936 - SECTIONS 2(A), 2(B), 2(D), 2(F), 3(1) - DISPLAY OF FABRICS BY MANNEQUINS IN A DOME - WHETHER AN ENTERTAINMENT - WHETHER PAYMENT FOR ADMISSION TO THE DOME IS A PAYMENT FOR ADMISSION TO AN ENTERTAINMENT - HELD, NO.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a textile company and its employee, set up a canvas canopy, called the "Calico Dome," on an open piece of land in Jabalpur to display and sell their fabrics. The Dome was enclosed on three sides and open on the side facing the road. Admission to the Dome was free during the morning hours, but restricted to bona fide purchasers in the evening hours. Visitors were required to obtain a token worth Rs. 2/-, which could be exchanged for Rs. 2/- worth of cloth inside the Dome. The petitioners also arranged a display of fabrics by mannequins in the evening hours, visible to both visitors inside the Dome and passersby outside. The District Excise Officer demanded entertainments duty from the petitioners, claiming that the display by mannequins was an entertainment and that the token fee was a payment for admission to the entertainment.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the display of fabrics by mannequins in the Dome was not an entertainment within the meaning of the C. P. and Berar Entertainments Duty Act, 1936, and that the token fee was not a payment for admission to an entertainment. The court found that the primary purpose of the Dome was to advertise and promote the sale of the petitioners' fabrics, and that the display by mannequins was merely a spectacle to impress upon visitors the 'chic' of the material manufactured by the petitioners. The court also noted that no charge was made for admission to the Dome, and that the token fee was nothing more than a part advance payment towards purchases made by visitors.
Issues: 1. Whether the display of fabrics by mannequins in the Dome was an entertainment within the meaning of the C. P. and Berar Entertainments Duty Act, 1936? 2. Whether the token fee was a payment for admission to an entertainment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term "entertainment" in Section 2(b) of the Act as requiring an organized entertainment for the purpose of affording amusement and gratification to those who see or hear it. The court found that the display of fabrics by mannequins in the Dome was not an entertainment because it was not organized for the purpose of amusement or gratification, but rather to advertise and promote the sale of the petitioners' fabrics. 2. The court interpreted the term "payment for admission" in Section 2(d) of the Act as including any payment made for admission to a place of entertainment. The court found that the token fee was not a payment for admission to an entertainment because the Dome was not a place of entertainment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the order of the District Excise Officer demanding entertainments duty, and restrained the respondents from enforcing the provisions of the C. P. and Berar Entertainments Duty Act, 1936, against the petitioners. The court also directed the refund of the amount already collected from the petitioners.
( 1 ) THE question raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is whether entertainments duty is exigible from the petitioners under the Central Provinces and Berar Entertainments Duty Act, 1936.
( 2 ) THE material facts are these. The first petitioner, the Calico Mills Ltd. , Ahmedabad, is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of textiles. The second petitioner is an employee of the Calico Mills Ltd. , whose duty is to exhibit Calico doth fabrics and advertise them for sale. In the usual course of their business the petitioners put up a canvas canopy styling it as "calicloth Dome" on an open piece of land in Jabalpur for display and sale of the goods of the Calico Mills. The Dome was enclosed on three sides. 1c was kept open on the side facing Jabalpur--Gwarighat road. The petitioners say that this side was kept open to enable all persons passing on the road and bystanders to have a clear perspective of the goods displayed for sale inside. The admission to the Dome was free and unrestricted during the morning hours between 9 A. M. and 12 noon. According to the applicants, it was however restricted in the evening hours from 4 P. M. to 9 P. M. to bona fide purchasers. The persons who were minded to go to the Dome in the evening were required to obtain a token of the value of Rs. 2/ -. This amount was later on adjusted towards the price of cloth purchased by the person visiting the Dome. The token could thus be exchanged for Rs. 2/-worth of cloth fabrics inside the Dome. In order to attract a large number of visitors and promote the sales of their fabrics, the petitioners used to arrange every evening between 4 P. M. and 9 P. M. a display of the fabrics. . . . . by mannequins who used to wear and show off Saries, costumes etc. manufactured by the Mills. The petitioners averred that this display by mannequins was visible to all persons standing outside and was not restricted to buyers inside the Dome.
( 3 ) ON 24th October, 1960, the petitioners informed the District Excise Officer, Jabalpur of their intention to hold an exhibition for sale of their fabrics. In reply, the District Excise Officer, acting under the orders of the Collector, Jabalpur, intimated the petitioners that the tokens prescribed by the applicants for entrance to the Dome could not be exempted from entertainments duty and that they should affix duty stamps on the tokens "at the rate of 25 per cent of the total admission fee". The petitioners contend that the display arranged by them was not an "entertainment" within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Act; that the token of Rs. 2/- obtained by a visitor in the evening was not by way of any payment for admission to entertainment; that it was nothing more than an agreement between the visitor and the petitioners that the visitor would purchase at least Rs. 2/- worth of calico cloth; and that therefore, no entertainments duty could be charged on them as proprietors of any entertainment. The petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the opponents Nos. 2 and 3 directing them to pay entertainments duty "at the rate of 25 per cent of the total admission fee". They also seek a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the opponents from enforcing the provisions of the Act against them and for refund of the duty already levied, assessed and collected from them.
( 4 ) THE facts about the display in the Dome and the system employed therein for regulating admission are not disputed by the respondents in the return filed by them. The right of the petitioners to regulate the manner of their trade and regulate admission has also not been contested, and it is admitted that the value of token obtained by a visitor could be adjusted towards the price of cloth purchased by him inside the Dome. The answer of the respondents is that during the evening hours the petitioners offered as an attraction a show and that admission to th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
