BOMBAY HOSPITAL TRUST Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition, the petitioner no.1, which is a public charitable trust, and others have questioned the liability to pay entertainment duty in respect of the cable television net-work in the premises of the Hospital and have prayed for setting aside the orders demanding such duty and confirming the demand.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the petitioner no.1 is a public charitable trust which runs the Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre without any motive of earning profit. A cable operator in the area is said to have offered its basic service of 32 channels free of charge as a special case for one year, to be renewed subsequently. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners have installed about 150 television sets with cable connection in some rooms and in common waiting areas where relatives/friends of patients wait in the hospital. According to the petitioners, the hospital does not charge any special fee from the patients in respect of the television sets installed by it. It, however, appears from the Information Booklet of the hospital that the rooms are classified in terms of the facilities and conveniences available in it, including features such as television.

(3.) The District Collector of Mumbai City (Entertainment Tax Branch) raised a demand of entertainment duty on the petitioners for cable connections in respect of each T.V. in the hospital by way of a monthly entertainment tax of Rs.15/- from May 1998 to March 2000 and Rs.30/- from April, 2000, on the basis of a survey. Thereafter, though a personal hearing was offered by the 2nd respondent to the petitioners, the petitioners did not attend the hearing. The 2nd respondent passed an order dated 11.12.2003 levying entertainment tax from April 2003 till November 2003. Thereafter, in Writ Petition No.193 of 2004 filed by the petitioners, this Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal under section 10A of the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". After hearing, the appellate authority, i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the demand.