STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.versusSMT. ABHA SETHI ETC.

A                          STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.
                                     v.
                            SMT. ABHA SETHI ETC.

                                  APRIL 28, 1999                               ·,

B    [HON'BLE S.P. BHARUCHA, B.N. KIRPAL, S. RAJENDRA BABU,
           S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.]


          MP. Enterainments Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936:

c           Entertainment Tax-Levy of-State/of Madhya Pradesh-Video
    Parlours-Video Games-Held liable to entertdinment Tax-The mere fact
     that payment was not made at the time of entJring · 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
D   different manner at a different stage was in any case for providing
    entertainment.

         Barrish Wilson v. State of MP., (W.P. No. 567/81), Decided by M.P.
    High Court, disapproved.

E         Geetha Enterprises & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.. (1983) 3 SCR 812,
    affirmed and followed.

          Standard Games & Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors., [1996) 4 SCC 467,
    referred to.

p         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4372of1984
    Etc. Etc.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.82 of the Madhya Pradesh
    High Court in Misc. P. No. 570of1981.

G        S.K. Agnihotri, Mrs. Madhur Dadlani and Sapam Biswajit Mistel for the
    Appellants.

         Sarwa Mitter for Mis. Mitter & Mitter Co. for Petitioner in W.P. No.
    12221/85.

H         S.K Gambhir and R.B. Misra (NP) for the Respondent.
                                         930
                           ST ATE v. ABHA SETHI                            931
      The following Order of the Court was delivered :                             A
      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. 567/8 l,
Harrish Wilson v. State of MP., 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           B
a person in the video parlour is his own performance and not the exhibiti~n,
performance, amusement, game or any sport offered by the proprietor of the
video parlour. The payment that was made was only to provide the payer with
tools for deriving pleasure from his own performance and that payment did
not amount to a payment for admission to an entertainment.                         C
       The judgment in the case of Harrish Wilson was noticed by this Court
in the case ofGeetha Enterprises & Ors. v. State ofU.P. & Ors., [1983] 3 SCR
812 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 mad~ at the time of entering the         D
video pariour was irrelevant; payment niade 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 fQr providing
entertainment. The decision in Harrish Wilson' case was, therefo\e, in terms
disapproved of.                                                       1
                                                                                   E
      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.

      The case of Geetha Enterprises has been followed by this Court in            F
Standard Games & Ors. v. State of UP. & Ors., [1996] 4 SCC 467. 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.

       Following the judgment in the case of Geetha Enterprises, the appeals       G
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.

T.N.A.                                                       Appeals allowed.