SILVER SCREEN ENTERPRISES A FIRM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the petitioners before us are Messrs. Silver Screen Enterprises, a firm which carries on the business of exhibiting cinematograph films, and Badri Prasad Seth, the proprietor of a Cinema house at Simla. The petitioners challenge the validity of some provisions of Act 8 of 1954 which empowers the levy of entertainment tax on cinematograph shows exhibited in public. By this Act a tax up to a maximum Rs. 10/- can be levied "on all public cinematograph exhibitions to which persons are admitted on payment."

(2.) Mr. Grover raised four points before us. He contended in the first place that this was a tax on a profession or calling as contemplated by Entry 60 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, and inasmuch as the annual levy of the tax would exceed a sum of Rs. 250/- the State Government was not empowered to impose such a tax in view of the provisions of Article 276 of the Constitution. In the second place, he contended that Section 6 Sub-section (2) of the Act gives arbitrary powers to Government to levy this tax from individuals chosen according to their caprice and therefore the power to tax contravened Article 14 of the Constitution. In the third place, he contended that Article 14 was also contravened because the levy of tax was uniform on all cinemas irrespective of the income they furnished to their proprietors. Lastly, he contended that the provisions of the Act infringed Article 19 of the Constitution.

(3.) With regard to the first point it is quite clear that the tax falls under Entry 62 which deals with "Taxes on luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling". This is clearly a tax on entertainment because it is the exhibition of a cinematograph film which is being taxed. Mr. Grover argued that the tax payable by the proprietor and that a person who exhibits cinematograph films or in other words is the proprietor for the purposes of this Act follows the calling of a cinematograph exhibitor. Thus it is the profession of exhibiting films which is being taxed. Now, it is quite clear that the person who pays a tax follows some calling or the other but for that reason alone the tax does not become a tax on his profession or calling. Otherwise the sales tax would be a tax on the profession, of shop-keeping, and any kind of tax would be a tax on the profession which the taxed individual follows. This is clearly a tax on entertainments and the mere fact that the person who pays the tax follows the vocation of providing entertainment for public does not make it a tax which falls under Entry 60.