BULBUL BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Govind Krishna, Sri Vipin Kumar and Sri N.S. Chahar, Advocates for petitioners in all the writ petitions and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

(2.) Though validity of Sec. 3 of U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1979") as amended by U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax (Amendment) Act, 2009 (Act No. 25 of 2009) (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment Act, 2009") has been challenged in all these writ petitions but during course of argument we find that as a matter of fact dispute relates to Explanation (2) inserted by Amendment Act, 2009 at the end of Sec. 3 only and not entire Section 3 as amended by Amendment Act, 2009. We further find during course of argument that dispute was confined to interpretation of meaning of Explanation (2), whether it contemplates computation and demand of entertainment tax on the amount of entertainment tax already computed under Sec. 3(1) or is only clarificatory in nature.

(3.) Sec. 3 as it stood prior to Amendment Act, 2009 and after said amendment are reproduced as under: