Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STANDARD GAMES ETC. versus STATE OF UP. AND ORS. ETC.

Decided
10 April 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 172 · 1996 INSC 500
Also cited as
  • (1996) 4 SCC 467 (2 citing judgments)

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.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

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.

Leave granted in SLP (C} No. 5560/84.

p. 172, margin F

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.

pp. 172–173, margin F

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 Ellterp1ises & 010-. v. State of UP. & 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.

p. 173, margin A

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. R..P. Appeals dismissed.

p. 173, margin D