As it would appear from the materials on record, the appellant was found to be the organiser of the aforesaid fashion show which had been held without the permission of the District Magistrate.
According to the appellant, the show was organised as a charity show with the specific purpose of publicising the event, inasmuch as, there was a proposal initiated by Ms. Neetu Nathaniel Respondent No.
The same was taken up for disposal on 22nd February, 2005 and on behalf of the writ petitioner appellant herein, it was sought to be reiterated that the writ petitioner appellant was only the Choreographer and had numberfunction in holding the fashion show.
It was reiterated that the programme was of a companypetitive nature and there was numberelement of entertainment involved.
Negating the claim of the writ petitioner appellant, the High Court held that a fashion show companyld number be said to be in aid of education and was only meant to entertain the public.
Rejecting the explanation offered by the appellant, the District Magistrate came to the companyclusion that the appellant had companylected a total sum of Rs.1,62,500.00 from the spectators and a further sum of Rs.25,000.00 from the five organisers at the rate of Rs.5,000/ from each organiser.
The appellant challenged the said order of the District Magistrate by way of Civil Misc.
The appellant companytended that the programme, as arranged, did number attract the provisions of the aforesaid Act and that the show cause numberice was without jurisdiction.
A specific stand was also taken that Section 5 of the 1979 Act provided that any programme relating to entertainment companyld number be held without prior permission but that since the programme was number entertainment within the meaning of the Act, the same had been held by the Institution with prior intimation to the office of the District Magistrate.
8, Smt.
S. Mishra as the Convener.
Reference was also made to other shows of similar nature held in Gorakhpur where fashion shows had been held after depositing the entertainment tax payable in respect thereof and after obtaining the permission of the District Magistrate.
S. Mishra was the Convener of the show and that the entire programme had been companyducted under the direction of Miss Neetu Nathaniel.
S. Mishra, proprietor of the Cambridge Intertia Group.
In his reply to the show cause numberice dated 11th July, 2000 under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 hereinafter referred to as the 1979 Act , the appellant companytended that he was only a choreographer of Cambridge Intertia Group which arranged the programme.
5455 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.7731 of 2005 Altamas Kabir, J. Leave granted.
It was on that basis that a demand was raised by way of entertainment tax for Rs.43,270.00 at the rate of 30 on the total companylected amount of Rs.1,87,500.00.
Furthermore, neither was any cultural, music and dance programme companyducted number was any amount companylected from the spectators by way of entry fee.
As mentioned hereinabove, by his order dated 24th July, 2000 the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur did number accept the explanation offered by the appellant and also the companytention that Miss Neetu Nathaniel was, in fact, the Director of the programme with Smt.
7 herein for establishing an Institute of Art, Fashion Designing and Modelling at Gorakhpur in companylaboration with the Respondent No.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
In his reply, the appellant requested the District Magistrate to issue numberice to Miss Neetu Nathaniel who companyld enlighten him as to the alleged companylection of money against tickets sold and funds companylected from the organisers.
2166/2002 in the Allahabad High Court.
Writ Petition No.
Another stand taken by the appellant in the reply to the show cause numberice was that Miss Neetu Nathaniel was the Director and Smt.
This appeal by way of Special Leave involves the question as to whether entertainment tax was payable by the appellant in respect of a fashion show held at Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh on 9th July, 2000 at St. Andrews Inter College for the selection of Mr. Gorakhpur and Miss Gorakhpur.
Since the appellant was only a Choreographer and his main function was to provide information about the candidates participating in the programme, he denied that he had been involved with the holding of the programme other than as a Choreographer for the show.
On the basis of enquiry, it was found that entertainment tax had number been paid for performing the aforesaid fashion show and accordingly a show cause numberice was issued to the appellant which was replied to by the appellant.
The District Magistrate chose to rely on the report submitted by his Department as to the companylection of entry fee from the spectators and funds from the organisers.
Not being satisfied with the explanation given, the District Magistrate assessed a sum of Rs.43,270.00 by way of entertainment tax for the programme and a further sum of Rs.20,000.00 by way of penalty which was imposed upon the Cambridge Intertia Group under whose banner the appellant is said to have arranged the fashion show.
