1996SCMR 1840 (PLP)

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 Patriata 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 Patriata 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 the substituted one, which read as follows:-- "Original clause (d) of section 2 of the Act: 'Entertainment' includes any exhibition, performance, amusement, game or 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. A.A./R-260/S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.