This article is written by Diksha Shastri. It attempts to uncover the case of State of Karnataka vs. M/s. Drive-in Enterprises, where the imposition of taxes on open-air cinemas, aka drive-in cinemas, was put into question. The main issue raised before the Supreme Court was whether or not the State was allowed to make regulations for the levy of entertainment taxes on motor vehicles entering into a drive-in cinema or not. This article covers all the facts, issues, and the rationale behind judgement by the Apex Court in deciding the matter.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The case of State of Karnataka vs. M/s. Drive-in Enterprises (2001) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the case’) revolves around the issue of limitation of the State’s power to levy entertainment taxes on drive-in cinemas. A drive-in cinema is usually an open-air theatre where the audience can watch movies from the comfort of their motor vehicles.
Entertainment tax, sometimes even referred to as an amusement tax, is a type of tax levied on the commercialisation of entertainment. For example, you pay entertainment tax when you buy a movie ticket or tickets to sports events, exhibitions, etc. As a part of the indirect tax regime, entertainment taxes were charged separately before the inception of the single system for indirect taxes through the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
The issue concerning this indirect tax was whether or not the state government held the power to charge certain entertainment taxes for the automobiles entering the drive-in cinemas. Let’s see the court’s rationale in detail.
Details of the case
Let’s start with understanding the basic details of the case.
Name of the case: State of Karnataka vs. M/s. Drive-in Enterprises
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of the judgement: 13th March, 2001
Parties: The State of Karnataka (appellant), and M/s Drive-in enterprises (respondent)
Represented by: A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and O. P. Rana (for respondent), Mr. M. S. K. Sastri (for appellant)
Citations: AIR 2001 SC 1328 226
Bench: Justice. V.N. Khare, Justice Ruma Pal
Important provisions and laws: Sections 2, 4A and 6 of The Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act 1958, Rule 111- A of Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1971, Section 22 of Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964
Facts of the case
The concern arose when the respondent in this matter, i.e., the proprietor and owner of the drive-in theatre situated near the outskirts of Bangalore city, filed an application to the Karnataka High Court to repeal Section 2 of the Karnataka Entertainment Tax Act 1958, as it was beyond the powers of the state to incorporate the section.
It is an agreed fact that the term Drive-In cinema is different from other forms of theatre, as it allows people to watch featured films in an open environment. Moreover, drive-in cinemas have a separate definition under the laws. With that being said, in this particular drive-in theatre, there was also an auditorium where people without vehicles could sit and watch the movie by paying INR 3/-. From this amount, the now appellant state government levied entertainment taxes. Now, for all those who were interested in watching the movies from their car and brought the cars to the auditorium, an extra charge of Rs. 2/- was charged. The State of Kerala, instead of just levying taxes on the people who come to be entertained, also started charging for the entry of these cars inside the theatre. Leading to the first writ petition by the proprietor of Drive in cinema before the Karnataka High Court.
A single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court allowed the petition and struck down the extra entertainment tax levied on the entry of cars. The court held that since the tax was not being levied on a person being entertained, the charging of such a tax was ultra vires by the state. As a result of this decision, the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act 1958 was amended to change Section 2, Section 4A, and Section 6 of the Act.
However, even after this amendment to the law, the state continued to levy an entertainment tax on motor vehicles. This resulted in another appeal by way of writ petition challenging the action of the government under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Article confers the power on the High Court to call upon orders and writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari for the enforcement of rights. This writ petition was allowed and the High Court struck down the subclause in question, i.e., Section 2(i)(v) of the Act. The state then challenged this order before the Supreme Court, leading to the case of State of Karnataka vs. M/s. Drive-in Enterprises (2001).
Issues raised
This case revolves around one important issue. Whether or not the state has the power to charge entertainment tax on the entry of vehicles to the drive-in theatres. In legal terminology, with all the laws in mind, this issue can be framed as follows:
Whether the State Legislature is competent to enact a law to levy tax under Entry 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule on the admission of cars or other vehicles inside the drive-in theatre.
Hence, it falls upon the Supreme Court in the present case to determine the true nature and character of such a law, with reference to the power of the state to enact a law in this aspect. Let’s see what arguments were put forth by the parties.
Arguments of the parties
Appellants
The appellant in the present matter was the State of Karnataka. The counsel appearing on behalf of the State urged that the insertion of a new clause in the Act was completely valid, and as a result of these amendments, the State was competent enough to levy entertainment taxes on the entry of a car, motorbike or other vehicle in the drive-in theatre. Moreover, taking the doctrine of pith and substance into consideration, they even stated that the levy is on the person but not on the vehicle.
Respondent
As a counter, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, M/s. drive-in enterprises, claimed that the drive-in theatres do not fall in the same category as a normal theatre or cinema house. In fact, its most prominent feature is that it allows people to bring in their motor vehicles and use the comfort of the same. Hence, the admission of the vehicle fees was also covered under the entertainment tax levied on the person visiting. Hence, claiming that the state was not competent enough to enact such a legislature to allow this levy on the admission of motor vehicles and cars to the drive-in cinema.
Further, they argue that the state is only competent to impose a tax on the person being entertained by the movie or cinema. Hence, they stated that the tax levy was only allowed for human beings and not for any inanimate objects. As a result, since the vehicles do not come under the definition of a person, the state was not competent to enact laws for the levy of entertainment tax on motor vehicles in a drive-in theatre.
Laws/concepts involved in State of Karnataka vs. M/s. Drive-in Enterprises (2001)
Now that we know all the arguments from both sides of the case, it becomes a bit easier to understand the issue. However, apart from having a clear understanding of the main issue in a case, it is very important to understand all the legal principles and legislation involved to reach the final judgement of the court. Hence, now let’s delve into the principles:
The Karnataka Entertainments Act, 1958
The State of Karnataka implemented this Act to create a uniform law for the levy of entertainment tax across the entire State of Karnataka.
Definition of Payment for Admissions
The most important legal provision discussed in this case is Section 2(i)(v), which was held invalid by the High Court. Section 2 is for definition, whereas clause (i) gives an inclusive definition for payment for admission, whereas sub-clause (v) specifically talks about the payment for admission of a vehicle to cinemas, like a drive-in cinema.
Tax on cinematograph shows in certain places
Section 4A was introduced by the state to determine the rate of taxes on the basis of the population of the local authorities. The insertion of this section shows the determination behind the state wanting to levy taxes on the admission of vehicles in the drive-in.
Manner of Payment of Tax
Section 6 of the Act was also amended after the decision of the High Court. However, the state made more amendments to include the fact that the tax must be calculated on the ticket sold as well as the number of admissions.
By amending these provisions, the case was brought before the Supreme Court.
Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971
Rule 111-A of the rules, defines drive-in cinemas as a cinema with open-air premises, allowing the audience to watch the movie or featured film inside their car or other motor vehicles. Moreover, it also includes auditoriums, where people without cars can sit or stand and watch their movies. The maximum capacity for entry was selected to be 1000 cars.
The Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964
This Act was also implemented to create uniform legislation for the regulation of cinemas across the entire State of Karnataka. Section 22 of the Act states the various rules and orders to be laid before the legislature. Thus, this section gave powers to the Karnataka state government to implement the rules for the regulation of cinemas. Resultantly, this is the provision, on the basis of which the Karnataka state government was enacting legislatures to levy tax on admission of motor vehicles in the drive-in cinema.
Doctrine of Pith and Substance
While arguing that the taxes were levied on the person and not the vehicle, the learned counsel for the appellant state relied on the doctrine of pith and substance. What exactly does it mean?
The term pith means the essence of something. However, substance stands for the essential part of the thing. This doctrine has always been useful when the legislative powers of the state and centre collide, despite the lists in Schedule VII of the Constitution of India.
According to this doctrine, when there is confusion between the legislative powers of the state and the centre over a subject of law and the true objective of that legislation falls within the ambit of the powers provided through Schedule VII, the law will be held valid even if it encroaches upon the legislative power of the other. Hence, if the objective of a law helps in furtherance of a subject within the powers of the state, they can make the legislation valid, even if the object falls outside their jurisdiction.
Features of the Doctrine of Pith and Substance
Resolves conflict
Whenever there is a conflict between the state’s legislative power and the centre’s legislative power, this doctrine helps in resolving the conflict of encroachment of power.
Flexibility
As a result of this principle, the legislative powers get a grey area to make laws for objects that do not entirely fall in their ambit.
Focus on true nature
With the help of this doctrine, the courts can take a look at the matter beyond technical aspects to achieve a greater good or real objective of the legislation.
Maintains balance
This doctrine of pith and substance helps in ensuring that the centre and state, alike, can effectively exercise their powers without much interference from each other.
Scope of the Doctrine
The primary scope of the doctrine of pith and substance is to create and maintain the balance between the subjects listed in Schedule VII of the Indian Constitution. However, it is also applicable when the cases are related to the repugnancy between central and state laws.
Yet, an important aspect of this doctrine is that determining the relationship between the object and the subject is quite subjective for different people. For instance, in the present case, the state stated that even though the Act was for the regulation of entertainment taxes since it was for people and not for the admission of cars, it was allowed to make this law and enact it because of the doctrine. Let’s see what the court has decided in this respect.
Relevant judgements referred in the case
To reach an immersive conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on the laws, legal principles and precedents set by various courts for similar matters. Let’s see the relevant judgements referred to by the court in this case.
(Morris) Leventhal & Ors. vs. David Jones Ltd. (1930)
This case revolves around an appeal by lessors of land to understand the liabilities of lessors and lessees in paying the tax for the property/premises. This was an appeal against the order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in favour of the lessees.
The main issue in this case was whether or not a legislature that imposes a bridge tax could survive when the power was to create a legislature only for the tax on land. Considering the pith and substance, it was held that the levy of bridge tax was valid and lawful under the legislative power for levying tax on land.
Governor General in Council vs. Province of Madras (1945)
This case arose when the Governor General in Council challenged the validity of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. This Act allowed for the levy of a tax on the first sales of goods produced in India. The main issue here was whether or not this Act was valid, to the extent of levying tax on first sales, or was this outside the competence of provincial legislative powers. Considering that the provincial legislative power to levy tax on sales of goods was conferred through the Constitution, the Act was held to be valid. The court emphasised the difference between various impositions by the government, even though sometimes they may overlap in practicality.
Raza Buland Sugar Co. vs. Rampur Municipality (1962)
This case involves a dispute regarding the imposition of a water tax between a public company and the Municipal Board of Rampur. The appellant was the owner of two sugar factories in Rampur and filed an application to hold the UP Municipalities Act, 1916 invalid. The reasons for such an application were that there was no proper publication for the tax imposition or the Act, and secondly, that the tax could not be levied because the building was not closer to a public water source.
However, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the levy of the water tax for the following reasons:
- Publishing in an Urdu Newspaper was sufficient since it had a wide reach; and
- Prior government approval was obtained, which cured the technical breach.
Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Indian Aluminium Co. (1976)
In this case, the validity of the Kerala State Electricity Supply (Kerala State Electricity Board and Licensees Areas) Surcharge Order 1968 was questioned. The main issue here was whether or not the state government, under the Kerala Essential Articles Control Act 1961, regulates electricity, which is a central government domain. To determine the true nature and character of the Act, the court relied on the doctrine of pith and substance. It was held that the law in itself was valid and the notification related to electricity passed was also valid. The major ground was that the pith and substance of the regulation of the sale price of electricity (a concurrent list subject) were valid.
RR Engineering Co. vs. Zila Parishad, Bareilly (1980)
This case involved two appeals challenging the validity of circumstances and property tax levied by the local authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The main issue was whether or not the state government had the legislative power to impose such a tax. The doctrine of pith and substance was taken into consideration once again and to determine its true nature, the court simply focused on two questions:
- Whether it was a tax on income; or
- Was it a tax on profession or trade, etc.
It was held that this tax was not on income but on the property. Hence, they decided that tax was valid on the basis of the List II of Schedule VII as it allows state legislative powers on the following subjects:
- Taxes on lands and buildings; and
- Taxes on professions, trades, etc.
As a result, it was held that the state definitely had the authority to create a legislature to impose taxes covered in List II.
Goodyear India Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (1990)
This case discusses the validity of a purchase tax on raw materials by manufacturers in Haryana. Various manufacturers argued that the tax levied on the consignment of manufactured goods was beyond the limit of the legislative powers of the state government.
While determining its validity, the Court observed that the total purpose of a legislative act is not conclusive in determining the true nature and character of a specific tax levy with reference to the legislative power.
As a result, the petition was allowed and the taxes were held invalid by the Court.
Judgement in State of Karnataka vs. M/s. Drive-in Enterprises (2001)
In the case of State of Karnataka v. M/s Drive in Enterprises (2001), the courts relied on various legal principles and precedents before delivering the judgement. After careful consideration of the elements involved, the Supreme Court found the previous decision of the High Court to be erroneous. As a result, the present appeal before the Supreme Court by the state government was allowed and the levy of tax on admission of motor vehicles to drive-in cinemas was held valid.
Behind any legal judgement or order of the Court is a rationale that supports their decision. Let’s see in detail the rationale behind the judgement of State of Karnataka v. M/s Drive In Enterprises (2001).
Rationale behind this judgement
The main question that lay before the Supreme Court in this matter was whether or not the state legislature had such powers to enact a law for imposing an entertainment tax on automobiles. Considering the legal principles of pith and substance, the court was first required to know the true nature and character of the law. The court must thus look at the whole act, its objective, scope, and other effects of the provisions. After examination of all these, if it is found that the act is substantially closer to the legislative power of the state, it can be held valid. So, the court set out to examine precedents for figuring out the real nature of tax levy with reference to the state legislature and its competency.
After the examination of precedents, the Court was in complete agreement with the statement of law and the view given in most of the precedents above. This proved that the nature of the levy was not decisive in these matters, but it was the true nature and character that helped in determining the competency of the state.
Then, the court moved on to examine the provisions in question, as discussed above. While taking a look at Entry 62 of List II, it was evident that the state has the power to create a legislature for imposing taxes on luxuries and entertainment. Moreover, the court even stated that entertainment implies that the person being entertained.
Moving forward to deciding the final issue on this basis, the Court relied on Section 3 of the Act, which was the charging provision for levying taxes on each payment of admission.
Thus, it was found that the state was in fact competent to make such laws and levy the tax on admission inside the drive-in theatre. Now, the main challenge that remained was to determine whether a vehicle would be considered entertaining or not. For which, the court held that it is evident that the car cannot go to the theatre alone; it is used for the admission of the person being entertained. Hence, the person is admitted to the drive-in theatre along with their car or other motor vehicle. Moreover, it also proves that since the person is entering the car and then enjoying the whole movie in it, they get a better quality experience. Thus, the entertainment tax levy also depends on the different levels of comfort a person has obtained. For instance, the person standing in the auditorium would have a different level of comfort than the one sitting in their car.
As a result, considering the pith and substance, it was held that this levy of admission was on the person in the car being entertained. Hence, it is a competent enactment for state legislative powers.
Setting aside the judgement of the High Court, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in this case.
Analysis of the case
When you simply take a look at the facts of the case, it may seem that the tax levied was not within the competence of the state legislature. However, when you delve deeper, it becomes evident that the correct way of analysing or understanding any judgement lies in understanding the legal principles involved. In this case, a major role was played by the doctrine of pith and substance, which focuses more on the true nature of a levy than its simple nomenclature.
At a glance, the tax on the admission of vehicles would seem that way to us. However, the key to the deciding factor lies in the hands of the court and how it interprets the law. For instance, the court emphasised how entertainment taxes work, defined all relevant terms legally and interpreted them to reach a conclusion. Resultantly, it was observed that at the end of the day, the person entering with a car is going to have a greater sense of comfort and entertainment. Moreover, he will be entertained while sitting in the car. Hence, the true nature of the levy was on the person, not the car itself. This makes it pretty clear that the High Court had erred in its decision to allow the application, which was now set aside by the Supreme Court.
Another important aspect in this case was the doctrine of pith and substance. This helps in analysing that, even though the state and centre have their own set of subjects to work on, the overlapping of powers is inevitable. It is in those situations that principles like pith and substance come to the rescue and help the court have a better and more clear interpretation of the law.
Conclusion
To conclude, entertainment taxes are levied on the persons being entertained. Which also includes the persons entering the drive-in theatre in their motor cars/vehicles. With that said, whenever there is confusion or contradiction in the legislative power provided under Schedule VII between centre and state, the doctrine of pith and substance helps in decoding the true nature and substance of the laws, in relation to the actual power of the state/centre. When this matches, the legislature is valid, even if parts of it are not within the state’s list.
This case is a really good example of the applicability of this doctrine. Moreover, it provides a clear interpretation of entertainment taxes, what a drive-in cinema is, and how the true nature of the tax levied in the Karnataka Entertainments Act was within the competency of the state legislature to enact.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Is entertainment tax applicable on the admission of motor vehicles to drive-in theatres?
Yes, it was decided in the case of the State of Karnataka vs. M/s Drive in Enterprises (2001) that levying such tax is within the power of the state legislature. Whereas, by considering the pith and substance, the tax is actually levied on the person sitting in the car and being entertained and not on the car.
What is the meaning of drive-in cinema?
A drive-in cinema is defined as an open-air theatre, different from other theatres, where the audience can enjoy a featured film or other movie from the comfort of their cars. It allows admission of cars and other motor vehicles into the movie theatre.
Why is the doctrine of pith and substance important?
The doctrine of pith and substance is the legal principle through which the dispute between the subject of legislative powers of the state and centre can be resolved. It suggests that even if legislation is encroaching on the rights of legislative powers if its true nature and substance are in relation to the powers conferred on the state/centre, it is valid legislation. It provides certain flexibility to both legislative bodies and allows them to take action for the greater good.
References
- https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/constitution-cases3-pdfpdf-253540781/253540781
- https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?s_acts=Karnataka%20Entertainments%20Tax%20Act,%201958§ion_art=section&s_article_val=4A
- https://ksei.karnataka.gov.in/81/cinema/en
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
