H H THE MAHARAJA OF JAIPUR MUSEUM TRUST JAIPUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by a Trust known as His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur Museum Trust, City Palace, Jaipur hereinafter called the Trust, under Art. 226 of the Constitution to challenge the levy of entertainment tax on the proceeds received by the Trust for allowing admission of the visitors to the museum on payment of certain fees prescribed by the Trust.

(2.) HIS Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur by a registered deed created a Trust on the 16th April 1959, and founded a museum in a portion of the city palace, Jaipur. It was a public charitable Trust. HIS Highness had a vast collection of various articles of historical, scientific, literary and archaeological importance which came in his possession from several generations. The Maharaja relinquished all his rights, title and interest in those articles and handed over them to be placed in a museum for which aforesaid Trust was created by him. According to the petitioner, this museum was founded for the benefit of the public and the visitors who visited the historic city of Jaipur. It is also contended that research scholars, students of history and persons interested in archaeology, architecture, science or arts derive benefit out of this museum which provides an opportunity for further studies and to augment their knowledge in the above subjects. The entrance fee that is charged from the visitors to the museum ranges from Re. 1/- to Rs. 4/- per head and the collection made from the entrance fee is utilised for the improvement of the museum and other charitable purposes. It is said that HIS Highness donated a further amount of rupees one lac for the upkeep and maintenance of the said museum. On the 1st December, 1961, the Entertainment Tax Officer - cum - Sales Tax Officer 'b' Circle, Jaipur City, issued a notice to the petitioner to pay entertainment tax leviable on the admission tickets issued by the Trust and demanded year-wise account of the sale of the tickets issued till 15th December, 1961. The petitioner by filing a reply to the said notice urged that the sale proceeds of the tickets sold to the visitors of the museum cannot be subjected to entertainment tax under the provisions of the Rajasthan Entertainments Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act ). This objection, it so appears, was examined by the Department and it is said that the Commercial Taxes Officer received instructions from the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Rajasthan, that since museums are educational and historical institutions, they cannot be termed as places of entertainment, and, therefore, no entertainment tax can be charged. This instruction of the Commissioner, it appears was accepted by the then Sales Tax Officer who had issued the notice to the petitioner, and therefore, he did not proceed to assess the petitioner for a period of over seven years. The respondent No. 2, after the lapse of a period of seven years again issued a notice on the 28th October, 1967, in the same terms in which the previous notice dated the 1st December, 1961, was issued by the Department. This notice has been place on record and is marked as annexure F. The petitioner by his reply dated the 6-11-1907, submitted to the respondent No. 2 that this matter stands decided by the instruction issued by the Commissioner on the 1-1-1962. A copy of the letter of the Commissioner was also sent along with the reply; but it so appears that the present Taxation Officer was not convinced by the departmental instructions issued by the Commissioner and he proceeded to assess the petitioner under the provisions of the Act. On the 12th January, 1968, the petitioner again submitted a written representation to respondent No. 2 saying that the museum was a registered trust of which educationalists like the Vice-Chancellor and other eminent persons were the trustees. The petitioner also drew the attention of the Taxation Officer that item No. 12 in List II of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution indicates that museum has been considered by the Constitution makers in the categories of libraries, ancient and historical monuments etc. and not in categories of dramatic performances, cinemas, sports, entertainments and amusements as mentioned in item No. 33 of the said List. According to the petitioner, the scope of the Act is to levy tax only on theatres, cinemas and other places of entertainment and not to tax the proceeds received by the museum which is spent for charitable and educational purposes. In spite of the notice received, no account was submitted by the petitioner to the assessing authority for completing the assessment, and, therefore, the assessing authority proceeded to access the petitioner without any material before it and passed an order on the 3rd October, 1968, which is placed on record as annexure L. From this order it appears that the following findings were given by the assessing authority; namely the Commercial Taxes Officer 'b' Circle, Jaipur: (1) The museum comes within the definition of entertainments as given in the Act. (2) Tax is leviable on the admission fee charged for admissions. (3) The Director has failed to comply with the provisions of sec. 6 (1) which lays down that no person shall be admitted to an entertainment except with a ticket stamped with adhesive stamps denoting that proper entertainment tax has been paid. (4) The offence under sec. 6 (1) is being committed daily. According to report of the Commercial Taxes Inspector dated the 20th September 1968, the number of persons admitted on 17-7-68, 18-7-68, 19-7-68 and 20-7-68 was as under: Date No. of persons admitted Admission fee 17-7-68 89 31900 18-7-68 63 21600 19 7-68 96 316-00 20-7-68 75 266-00

(3.) IN Calico Mills Ltd. vs. State of M. P. (supra), the question was posed for the determination of the court whether the exhibition of the products of the Calico Mills Ltd. , Ahmedabad in a well decorated 'calicloth dome' for the purpose of attracting the customers did come within the word "exhibition" as is used while defining the expression "entertainment" in the C. P. and Berar Entertainments Duty Act. IN that case, the dome was covered from three sides but it was kept open from one side to enable the passers by to have a glimpse or 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, but the entry was restricted in the evening hours from 4 P. M. to 9 P. M. to bona fide purchasers who were required to obtain a token of the value of Rs. 2/- which amount later on was to be adjusted towards the price of cloth purchased by the person visiting the Dome. IN order to attract a large number of visitors, the calico fabrics were displayed artistically in the Dome by mannequins who used to wear and show off Saries, costumes etc. manufactured by the Mills. The department wanted to tax the earnings of the Mills under the provisions of the C. P. and Berar Entertainment Duty Act, 1936, and an argument was advanced before their Lordships of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the exhibition of the fabrics produced by the Mills in the well decorated Dome did attract the application of the expression "entertainment" which was defined exactly in the same manner in which it has been defined in the Act Their Lordships were dealing with the expression "entertainment" as defined in that Act expressed that 'exhibition' is included in the expression 'entertainment' but they further went on to observe that - "the word 'exhibition' occurring in the definition of 'entertainment' in sec. 2 (b) must take its colour from the natural import of the term 'entertainment' If certain goods are exposed to view for the purpose of sale, there is no doubt an exhibition of goods in the sense of 'showing'. But that is not any entertainment. The exhibition for sale of the fabrics themselves in elegant surroundings under a canopy put up by the petitioners did not afford any gratification diversion or amusement. " Their Lordships further examined the expression "entertainment" and observed - "the natural import of the term 'entertainment' is amusement and gratification of some sort. The term connotes something in the nature of an organised entertainment. This is evident from the fact that the Act was enacted to provide for the levy of a duty in respect of admission to theatres, cinemas and other places of public entertainment. Therefore an entertainment to come within the definition of sec. 2 (b) and of the provisions of the Act must be some exhibition, performance, amusement, game or sport for the purpose of entertainment, that is, for affording some sort of amusement and gratification to those who see or hear it. It is true that in the case of Cilico Mills Ltd. the products of the Mills were exhibited mainly for the purpose of sale but that exhibition did attract many people to the Dome where it was arranged. It is difficult to find out from the judgment reproduced whether those entrants who did not like to purchase any goods inside the Dome were to refund their entrance fee or not. But if such a refund was not provided by the organisers of that exhibition, then it is difficult to say that those persons entered the Dome after the payment of an entrance fee of Rs. 2/- with a view to make purchases of the fabric produced by the Mills. Their object could be to see the fabric displayed and to get amusement out of the show of mannequins wearing them. Their Lordships discussed this aspect of the question also when they observed: "it is also well known that many drapers and milliners of repute and standing display their goods on dummy models. It seems to us that a place where fabrics are displayed and shown off by mannequins wearing them is no more a place of entertainment than a shop establishment where wearing apparels are displayed on dummy models. Nothing turns on the fact that the display by mannequins was on a stage or on the fact that there was a seating arrangement inside the Dome for having a good view of the display, or again on the fact that 'many fashionable ladies and gentlemen of the town were attracted more towards the show than towards the purchase of cloth". "many of them might have gone to the place merely for the purpose of watching the display and seeing something which they had not seen before. But the fact that these people went out of curiosity and novelty did not make the exhibition of cloth or the display by mannequins inside the Dome an entertainment. " It is clear from these observations that the plea that weighed with learned Judges while deciding that case was that the main object for having such a display of the fabrics produced by the Mills was not to provide any amusement or gratification who went to see that exhibition but it was done mainly to attract people to augment the sale of the products of the Mills displayed in that Dome, and, therefore, in such circumstances their Lordships were not prepared to accept the display or exhibition of articles as providing amusement or gratification to those who were admitted to that place after payment of entrance fee. This is a salient distinguishing feature between the display of the calico fabrics in the Dome and the display of articles in the museum organised by the petitioner, and, therefore, the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court can hardly lend any support to the contention raised by the petitioner The exhibition of the articles can come within the definition of 'entertainment' only when they are displayed with a view to provide amusement or gratification of any kind to the visitors who go to see that display and they do provide amusement to them.