REDCO PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED vs TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PUNJAB and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the levy of entertainment duty on a chair-lift project operated by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the use of a chair-lift falls within the definition of "entertainment" under the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958, particularly after the 1992 amendment to the definition clause. The petitioner argued that because "chair-lift" was not explicitly included in the amended definition of "entertainment" under Section 2(d) of the Act, the duty was not leviable. The Supreme Court held that the definition of "entertainment" in the Act, which uses the word "includes," is inclusive and not exhaustive. Consequently, the omission of "chair-lift" from the specific list in the amended clause did not imply its exclusion from the scope of the Act. Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that the charging section (Section 3) is couched in wide terms, covering payments for admission to any entertainment. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
- Is the definition of 'entertainment' under Section 2(d) of the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958, exhaustive?
- Does the use of the word 'includes' in a statutory definition imply that the list provided is not exhaustive?
- Does the omission of a specific activity from an amended definition of 'entertainment' imply that the activity is excluded from the scope of the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958?
- Section 2(d), Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958
- Section 3, Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958
ORDER
' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 8-6-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,2993 of 1993 filed by the petitioner challenging the levy of entertainment duty on the chair-lift. It will suffice to observe that under an agreement dated 23-10-1989 the petitioner had taken on lease chair-lift project at Partita together with the support facilities for operating the same on charging at the rate of Rs,15 per person. The petitioner through the aforesaid writ petition impugned the levy of entertainment duty under Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958 (previously known as West Pakistan Entertainment Duty Act, 1958), hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that the same was not covered by the expression "entertainment", dismissing the same. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition, Malik Muhammad Azam Rasul, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the definition of the word "entertainment" given in clause (d) of section 2 of the Act does not include the use of chair-lift by the visitors at Partita as the same cannot be said to be an entertainment. His further submission is that though Punjab Finance Act, 1992, has amended the above clause (d) of section 2 of the Act by substituting the same, but has not included use of Chair-lift as entertainment and, therefore, after the above amendment, in any case, the levy of entertainment duty, is not justified.
3. It may be advantageous to reproduce the original clause (d) of section 2 of the Act and tier substituted one, which read as follows:- "Original clause (d) of section 2 of the Act: 'Entertainment' includes any exhibition, performance, amusement, game sport to which persons are admitted on payment; Substituted clause (2) of section 2 of the Act: 'Entertainment' includes any exhibition, performance, amusement or horse racing to which persons are admitted on payment; "
' A perusal of the above original clause (d) indicates that the word "entertainment" was defined as to include any exhibition, performance, amusement, game or sport to which persons were admitted on payment.
' Whereas the above substituted clause (d) defines "entertainment" as to include any exhibition, performance, amusement or horse racing to which persons are admitted on payment.
4. Since in both the definitions of clause (d) the word "includes" has been Used and not the word "means", it is evident that the definition is not exhaustive. No particular entertainment has been specified in either of two definitions except house racing in the substituted clause. In this view of the matter, the amendment does not, in any way, support the case of the petitioner from the fact of omission to mention chair-lift in the substituted clause (d) of section 2 of the Act, it cannot be inferred that the Legislature intended to exclude the chair-lifts. Since no particular form of entertainment has been referred to except the horse racing in the substituted clause (d), it cannot be urged that the chair-lifts have been excluded by implication. This Court, while dealing with clauses (d) and (f) of section 2 of the West Pakistan Entertainment Duty Act, 1958, in the case of Government of West Pakistan and others v. Messrs Jabees Limited (PLD 1991 SC 870), has pointed out that the definition of the terms "entertainment" is not exhaustive. It has also been pointed out that section 3 of the said Act is couched in very wide terms as it provides that there shall be levied and paid to the Government on all payments for admission to any entertainment. The instant case is covered by the above report, as has been rightly held by the learned Judge in Chambers. The petition has no merits. Leave is, accordingly, refused.