CALICO MILLS LTD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(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.