The division bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Krishna S.Dixit observed that, fashion show organised by the appellant, falls within the expression ‘entertainment’ and there had been ‘payment for admission’ so as to attract the relevant charging provisions of the Entertainment Tax Act, 1958.
The Court observed that, “In our considered view, a bare look at the definition of ‘entertainment’ in the Act of 1958 is sufficient to find that the expression has been defined in too wide and broad terms which undoubtedly take within their sweep an event like the one organised by the appellant, namely, a fashion show, which was sponsored by the interested manufacturers or business houses and which comprised of lifestyle parties, after-hour parties, press conferences, and exhibition of designer products/apparels by live models walking on the ramp and on mannequins. The said event definitely falls within the expressions ‘exhibition’ as also ‘performance’, apart that it would also answer to the description of an amusement for recreation and entertainment and even of a pageant”.
While dismissing the appeal, the Court also observed that, “It had been a ‘fashion show’, where there had been sponsorship and advertisements; where the apparels and dresses of various manufacturers were put in exhibition on mannequins as also on live models; and there had been lifestyle parties, afterhour parties too. In a cumulative effect of the activities of the event in question, we are in no doubt that they were of such exhibitions and performances, which indeed provide amusement and entertainment. Even if it served the business interests of the sponsors, the element of amusement and entertainment naturally woven in it cannot be taken out. The event organised by the appellant, therefore, clearly answers to the wide definition of ‘entertainment’ per sub-clause (iii) of clause (e) of Section of 2 of the Act of 1958”.To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE