Standard Games Etc vs State Of U.P. & Ors. Etc
- SCC(1996) 4 SCC 467
- Neutral1996 INSC 500
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 285
- SCR[1996] Supp (1) SCR 172
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A video game machine activated by inserting a coin, where the operator receives only the pleasure derived from exercising or building skill in operating the machine, constitutes entertainment within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Act, 1979, and is therefore subject to entertainment tax under the Act.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The admitted facts are that the appellant had installed the video game consisting of a machine with a display screen which is activated only by inserting a coin in the slot made in the machine. Immediately thereon, the screen is lit up and the game commences. The question is : whether it is an entertainment within the meaning of Section 2(a) of U.P. Entertainment and Betting Act. 1979 (for short, the 'Act')? The appellant's own case is that the operator gets nothing in return other than the pleasure he derives or enjoys from exercising or building up his skill in operating the machine. The Act defines "admission" under Section 2(a). Section 2(g) defines "entertainment". Section 2(1)
(iii),(iv) and (v) in particular defines "Payment for admission" with wide language. Notification dated July 24, 1981 was issued by the State exercising the power under Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Act prescribing the rates of admission.
Admittedly, since there is no enumeration in this regard for the video game, clause (v) of the said notification imposes 30% of the admission fee as entertainment tax. The controversy raised in this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Geeta Enterprises & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1983) 3 SCR 812]. This Court has considered the above provisions and had held that charge of inserting the coin was realised only from those who wanted to operate the video game at the rate of 50 paise. For a slot lasting upto 30 seconds and it amounts to entertainment within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act. Therefore, video games is exigible to entertain tax. We, therefore, hold that the appellant is liable to pay the entertainment tax. We do not find any illegality in the view taken by the High Court warranting interference.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free