Supreme Court of India
STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. versus SMT. ABHA SETHI ETC.
- Decided
- 28 April 1999
- Judges listed
- S.P. BHARUCHA, B.N. KIRPAL, S. RAJENDRA BABU, S.S.M. QUADRI, M.B. SHAH
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1999] 2 S.C.R. 930 · 1999 INSC 208
- Also cited as
- (1999) 4 SCC 32
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
The State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal against orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that followed its earlier judgment in W.P. No. 567/8 l, Harrish Wilson v. State of MP., and held that video games located in video parlours were not liable to entertainment tax under the M.P. Entertainments Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936, on the ground that what entertains a person in the video parlour is his own performance and not the exhibiti~n, performance, amusement, game or any sport offered by the proprietor of the video parlour. The payment that was made was only to provide the payer with tools for deriving pleasure from his own performance and that payment did not amount to a payment for admission to an entertainment.
p. 931, margin A
The judgment in the case of Harrish Wilson was noticed by this Court in the case ofGeetha Enterprises & Ors. v. State ofU.P. & Ors., [1983] 3 SCR 812 and it was held that important aspects had been completely overlooked. The pivotal conclusions reached in that judgment did not appeal to this Court. The mere fact that payment was not mad~ at the time of entering the video pariour was irrelevant; payment niade at a later stage by inserting a coin was nonetheless for being admitted to a place of entertainment. The fee being charged in a different manner at a different stage was in any case fQr providing entertainment. The decision in Harrish Wilson' case was, therefo\e, in terms disapproved of.
p. 931, margin C
When the special leave petitions out of which these appeals arise came up for hearing, a Division Bench of this Court, on 5th November, 1984, observed that the view taken in the case of Geetha Enterprises required reconsideration.
p. 931, margin E
The case of Geetha Enterprises has been followed by this Court in Standard Games & Ors. v. State of UP. & Ors., [1996] 4 SCC 467. In any event, we have read the judgment in the case of Geetha Enterprises and are in agreement therewith. No reconsideration thereof is, in our view, required.
p. 931, margin F
Following the judgment in the case of Geetha Enterprises, the appeals are allowed and the orders under appeal are set aside. The writ petitions upon which those orders were passed are dismissed. No order as to costs. T.N.A. Appeals allowed.
p. 931, margin G