{"id":184988,"date":"2001-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-03-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001"},"modified":"2017-12-22T04:31:18","modified_gmt":"2017-12-21T23:01:18","slug":"the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors. &#8230; vs M\/S. Drive-In Enterprises &#8230; on 13 March, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors. &#8230; vs M\/S. Drive-In Enterprises &#8230; on 13 March, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V.N.Khare<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: V.N. Khare, Ruma Pal<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 4319  of  1991\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA &amp; ORS.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t  APPELLANTS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S. DRIVE-IN ENTERPRISES\t\t\t\t\t\t\t RESPONDENT\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t13\/03\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nV.N. Khare &amp; Ruma Pal\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>V.N.KHARE, J.:\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>    This  appeal  is  directed against the judgment  of\t the<br \/>\nKarnataka  High\t Court passed in the writ petition filed  by<br \/>\nthe  respondent herein whereby sub-clause (v) of Clause\t (i)<br \/>\nof  Section  2\tof  the\t  Karnataka  Entertainment  Tax\t Act<br \/>\n(hereinafter  referred\tto as the Act) was struck down\tas<br \/>\nbeing  beyond  the  legislative\t  competence  of  the  State<br \/>\nLegislature.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t respondent herein, is the owner and proprietor of a<br \/>\nDrive-in- Theatre in the outskirts of Bangalore city wherein<br \/>\ncinema\tfilms  are  exhibited.\t It   is  alleged  that\t the<br \/>\nDrive-in-Theatre  is distinct and separate in its  character<br \/>\nfrom  other cinema houses or theatres.\tThe  Drive-in-Cinema<br \/>\nis   defined   under  Rule   111-A  of\t Karnataka   Cinemas<br \/>\n(Regulation)  Rules  1971 (hereinafter referred to  as\tthe<br \/>\nRules)\tframed\tin exercise of the powers conferred on\tthe<br \/>\nState  Government  under  Regulation  22  of  the  Karnataka<br \/>\nCinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964.\t The definition of Drive-in-<br \/>\nCinema runs as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>      Drive-in-Cinema  means  a cinema with  an\t open-air<br \/>\ntheatre\t premises into which admission may be given normally<br \/>\nto  persons  desiring  to view the cinema while\t sitting  in<br \/>\nmotor  cars.  However, where an auditorium is also  provided<br \/>\nin  a drive- in-cinema premises, persons other than  those<br \/>\ndesiring  to view the cinema while sitting in motor cars can<br \/>\nalso be admitted.  Such drive-in-cinemas may have a capacity<br \/>\nto accommodate not more than one thousand cars.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The Drive-in-Theatre of the respondent with which we are<br \/>\nconcerned  here\t is a cinema with an  open-air-theatre\tinto<br \/>\nwhich admissions are given to persons desiring to see cinema<br \/>\nwhile  sitting in their motor cars taken inside the theatre.<br \/>\nThe  Drive-in-Theatre  has also an auditorium wherein  other<br \/>\npersons\t who  are  without  cars, view\tthe  film  exhibited<br \/>\ntherein\t either\t standing or sitting.  The persons  who\t are<br \/>\nadmitted  to  view the film exhibited in the auditorium\t are<br \/>\nrequired  to  pay Rs.3\/- for admission therein.\t It  is\t not<br \/>\ndisputed  that the State Government has levied entertainment<br \/>\ntax  on\t such  admission  and the same\tis  being  realised.<br \/>\nHowever,  if  any person desires to take his car inside\t the<br \/>\ntheatre with a view to see the exhibition of the films while<br \/>\nsitting in his car in the auditorium, he is further required<br \/>\nto   pay  a  sum  of  Rs.2\/-   to  the\tproprietor  of\t the<br \/>\nDrive-in-Theatre.    The  appellant-State  in  addition\t  to<br \/>\ncharging entertainment tax on the persons being entertained,<br \/>\nlevied\tentertainment  tax on admission of cars\t inside\t the<br \/>\ntheatre.  This levy was challenged by the proprietors of the<br \/>\nDrive-in-Theatres  by  means  of writ petitions\t before\t the<br \/>\nKarnataka  High Court which were allowed and levy was struck<br \/>\ndown by a single Judge of the High Court.  The said judgment<br \/>\nwas  affirmed  by  a Division Bench of that Court.   It\t was<br \/>\nheld,  that the levy being not on a person entertained (i.e.<br \/>\nCar\/Motor  vehicle),  the same was ultra vires.\t  After\t the<br \/>\naforesaid  decision,  the Karnataka Legislature amended\t the<br \/>\nAct  by Act No.3 of 1985.  By the said amendment, sub clause\n<\/p>\n<p>(v)  was  added to Clause (i) of Section 2 of the said\tAct.<br \/>\nSimultaneously,\t Sections  4A  and 6 of the  Act  were\talso<br \/>\namended.   After  the  aforesaid amendments,  the  appellant<br \/>\nherein,\t again levied entertainment tax on admission of cars<br \/>\ninto  Drive-in- Theatre.  This levy was again challenged  by<br \/>\nmeans  of  a petition under Article 226 of the\tConstitution<br \/>\nand  the said writ petition was allowed, and as stated above<br \/>\n, the High Court struck down sub-clause (v) to Clause (i) of<br \/>\nSection 2 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> Learned  counsel  appearing  for the appellant\t urged\tthat<br \/>\ninsertion  of  sub-clause (v) of Clause (i) of Section 2  of<br \/>\nthe  Act  is  a\t valid piece of legislation  and  after\t its<br \/>\ninsertion  and amendment of Section 6 and Section 4A of\t the<br \/>\nAct,  the appellant-State was competent to levy and  realise<br \/>\nthe  entertainment  tax\t on   the  admission  of  cars\/motor<br \/>\nvehicles  inside  the  Drive- in-Theatre.   Learned  counsel<br \/>\nurged  that in pith and substance, the levy is on the person<br \/>\nentertained  and not on the admission of cars\/motor vehicles<br \/>\ninside\tthe  Drive-in-Theatre.\tIt was also urged  that\t the<br \/>\nState Legislature is fully competent to impose such a levy.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Learned  counsel  for the respondent, inter alia,  urged<br \/>\nthat the Drive- in-Theatre is a different category of cinema<br \/>\nunlike\tcinema houses or theatres, that, the special feature<br \/>\nof  the Drive-in-Theatre is that, a person can view the film<br \/>\nexhibited  therein  while  sitting  in his  car,  that,\t the<br \/>\nadmission  of  cars\/motor vehicles into Drive-in theatre  is<br \/>\nincidental  and\t part of concept of Drive-in-Theatre,  that,<br \/>\nthe  film  that is shown in Drive- in- Theatre is  like\t any<br \/>\nother  film  shown  in cinema houses, and  that,  the  State<br \/>\nLegislature  is\t not competent to levy entertainment tax  on<br \/>\nadmission  of  motor vehicles inside the  Drive-in  theatre.<br \/>\nLearned\t counsel  further argued that the incidence  of\t tax<br \/>\nbeing  on  the\tentertainment,\t the  State  Legislature  is<br \/>\ncompetent  to  enact  law  imposing   tax  only\t on   person<br \/>\nentertained.   In nut-shell, the argument is that the  State<br \/>\nLegislature  can levy entertainment tax on human beings\t and<br \/>\nnot  on any inanimate object.  According to learned counsel,<br \/>\nsince  the  vehicle is not a person entertained,  the  State<br \/>\nLegislature   is  not  competent  to   enact  law  to\tlevy<br \/>\nentertainment  tax  on the admission of cars\/motor  vehicles<br \/>\ninside the Drive-in-Theatre.\n<\/p>\n<p>    On\tthe  arguments\tof learned counsel of  parties,\t the<br \/>\nquestion  arises  as  to whether the  State  Legislature  is<br \/>\ncompetent to enact law to levy tax under Entry 62 of List II<br \/>\nof  Seventh  Schedule  on admission of\tcars\/motor  vehicles<br \/>\ninside the Drive-in-Theatre.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Where  as in the present case, the vires of an enactment<br \/>\nis  impugned on the ground that the State Legislature  lacks<br \/>\npower to enact such an enactment, what the Court is required<br \/>\nto  ascertain  is the true nature and character of  such  an<br \/>\nenactment  with\t reference  to\tthe   power  of\t the   State<br \/>\nLegislature  to enact such a law.  While adjudging the vires<br \/>\nof  such  an  enactment, the Court must\t examine  the  whole<br \/>\nenactment,  its object, scope and effects of its  provision.<br \/>\nIf on such adjudication it is found that the enactment falls<br \/>\nsubstantially on a matter assigned to the State Legislature,<br \/>\nin  that  event such an enactment must be held to  be  valid<br \/>\neven  though nomenclature of such an enactment shows that it<br \/>\nis beyond the competence of the State Legislature.  In other<br \/>\nwords,\twhen  a levy is challenged, its validity has  to  be<br \/>\nadjudged  with\treference  to the competency  of  the  State<br \/>\nLegislature  to\t enact such a law, and while  adjudging\t the<br \/>\nmatter\twhat  is  required  to\tbe found  out  is  the\treal<br \/>\ncharacter and nature of levy.  In sum and substance, what is<br \/>\nto  be\tfound out is the real nature of levy, its  pith\t and<br \/>\nsubstance  and\tit  is in this light the competency  of\t the<br \/>\nState  Legislature is to be adjudged.  The doctrine of\tpith<br \/>\nand substance means that if an enactment substantially falls<br \/>\nwithin\tthe  powers expressly conferred by the\tConstitution<br \/>\nupon  the  Legislature, it cannot be held to be ultra  vires<br \/>\nmerely\tbecause\t its nomenclature shows that  it  encroaches<br \/>\nupon  matters  assigned to another heading  of\tlegislation.<br \/>\nThe nomenclature of a levy is not conclusive for determining<br \/>\nits  true character and nature.\t It is no longer res integra<br \/>\nthat the nomenclature of a levy is not a true test of nature<br \/>\nof  a  levy.  In Goodyear India Ltd.  &amp; Ors.  v.   State  of<br \/>\nHaryana\t &amp;  Anr.   1990 (2) SCC p.71, it was held  that\t the<br \/>\nnomenclature of an Act is not conclusive and for determining<br \/>\nthe  true  character  and nature of a particular  levy\twith<br \/>\nreference  to the legislative competence of Legislature, the<br \/>\nCourt  will look into pith and substance of the legislation.<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1448438\/\">In  M\/s.  R.R.\tEngineering Co.\t v.  Zila Parishad, Bareilly<br \/>\n&amp;  Anr.<\/a>\t 1980 (3) SCC p.330 the question arose as to whether<br \/>\nthe  Zila Parishad can levy tax on calling or property.\t The<br \/>\nargument  was that the levy is tax on income, therefore,  it<br \/>\nis ultra vires.\t However this Court held thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t fact that the tax on circumstances and property is<br \/>\noften levied on calling or property is not conclusive of the<br \/>\nnature\tof  the tax;  it is only as a matter of\t convenience<br \/>\nthat  income  is  adopted  as a\t yardstick  or\tmeasure\t for<br \/>\nassessing  the\ttax.  The measure of the tax is not  a\ttrue<br \/>\ntest  of  the nature of the tax.  Considering the  pith\t and<br \/>\nsubstance  of the tax, it falls in the category of a tax  on<br \/>\na mans financial position, his status taken as a whole and<br \/>\nincludes  what may not be properly comprised under the\tterm<br \/>\nproperty  and  at  the\tsame  time  ought  not\tto  escape<br \/>\nassessment.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>    In Kerala State Electricity Board vs.  Indian Alluminium<br \/>\nCo.  1976 (1) SCC p.466, it was held thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>    For deciding under which entry a particular legislation<br \/>\nfalls the theory of &#8216;pith and substance has been evolved by<br \/>\nthe  courts.   If in pith and substance a legislation  falls<br \/>\nwithin\tone  list  or  the other but  some  portion  of\t the<br \/>\nsubject-matter\tof  that legislation  incidentally  trenches<br \/>\nupon and might come to fall under another list, the Act as a<br \/>\nwhole  would  be  valid\t  notwithstanding  such\t  incidental<br \/>\ntrenching.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tGovernor General in Council vs.\t Province of  Madras<br \/>\nAIR  1945  P.C.\t p.98, the question arose as to whether\t the<br \/>\nlevy  was sales tax or excise duty.  In that connection\t the<br \/>\nPrivy Council held :\n<\/p>\n<p>    Its\t real  nature, its pith and substance is that  it<br \/>\nimposes\t a  tax\t on the sale of goods.\t No  other  succinct<br \/>\ndescription could be given of it except that it is a tax on<br \/>\nthe  sale of goods.  It is in fact a tax which according to<br \/>\nthe  ordinary  canons  of  interpretation  appears  to\tfall<br \/>\nprecisely  within Entry No.48 of the Provincial\t Legislative<br \/>\nList.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In Leventhal &amp; Ors.\t v.  David Jones Ltd.  AIR 1930 P.C.<br \/>\np.129,\tthe question arose as to whether the Legislature can<br \/>\nimpose\tBridge tax when the power to Legislate was really in<br \/>\nrespect\t of tax on land.  The levy of Bridge tax was  held<br \/>\nvalid  under legislative power of tax on land.\tIt was\theld<br \/>\nas thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>    The appellants contention that though directly imposed<br \/>\nby  the\t legislature, the bridge tax is not a land tax,\t was<br \/>\nsupported  by argument founded in particular on two manifest<br \/>\nfacts.\t The  bridge tax does not extend to  land  generally<br \/>\nthroughout New South Wales, but to a limited area comprising<br \/>\nthe  City  of Sydney and certain specified shires,  and\t the<br \/>\npurpose\t of  the  tax is not that of  providing\t the  public<br \/>\nrevenue\t for  the  common  purposes  of\t the  State  but  of<br \/>\nproviding  funds for a particular scheme of betterment.\t  No<br \/>\nauthority  was\tvouched for the proposition that  an  impost<br \/>\nlaid by statute upon property within a defined area, or upon<br \/>\nspecified  classes of property, or upon specified classes of<br \/>\npersons,  is not within the true significance of the term  a<br \/>\ntax.   Nor  so far as appears has it even been\tsuccessfully<br \/>\ncontended  that\t revenue  raised by  statutory\timposts\t for<br \/>\nspecific  purposes is not taxation. supplied) (emphasis\t In@@<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t       <a href=\"\/doc\/1113126\/\">IIIIIIIII<br \/>\nRaza  Buland  Sugar  Co.  v.  Rampur Municipality  AIR<\/a>\t1962<br \/>\nAllahabad  p.82, which was subsequently approved in 1965 (1)<br \/>\nSCR  p.970,  the question arose as to whether the  Municipal<br \/>\nBoard  can levy water tax when the power to legislate was in<br \/>\nrespect\t of the land and building.  The High Court held that<br \/>\nin  pith and substance water tax is not on water but it is a<br \/>\nlevy on land and building.\n<\/p>\n<p>    We\tare in full agreement with the aforestated statement<br \/>\nof  law and are of the view that it is not the\tnomenclature<br \/>\nof  the\t levy which is decisive of the matter, but its\treal<br \/>\nnature and character for determining the competency on power<br \/>\nof  State Legislature to enact law imposing levy.  It is  in<br \/>\nthe  light  of\tthe  aforesaid statement of  law,  we  would<br \/>\nexamine the validity of levy challenged in the present case.<br \/>\nBefore\twe  deal with the question in hand, we\twould  first<br \/>\nexamine the provisions of the Act.  Section 2 (a) of the Act<br \/>\ndefines\t admission.   Admission includes admission as  a<br \/>\nspectator  or as one of the audiences, and admission for the<br \/>\npurpose\t of  amusement by taking part in  an  entertainment.<br \/>\nClause\t (b)   of  Section  2  defines\tadmission   to\t an<br \/>\nentertainment  which  includes\tadmission to any  place\t in<br \/>\nwhich  an  entertainment is held.  Clause (cb)\tof  Section2<br \/>\ndefines cinema theatre means any place of entertainment in<br \/>\nwhich  cinematography  shows are held to which\tpersons\t are<br \/>\nadmitted  for  payment.\t Clause (e) of Section 2 of the\t Act<br \/>\ndefines\t  entertainment\t which\tmeans  a  horse\t race\tor<br \/>\ncinematography\tshows including exhibition of video films to<br \/>\nwhich persons are admitted on payment.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Section 2 (i) defines payment for admission which runs<br \/>\nas  under:  i) any payment made by a person who having\tbeen<br \/>\nadmitted  to  one  part\t of  a\tplace  of  entertainment  is<br \/>\nsubsequently  admitted to another part thereof for admission<br \/>\nto  which  a  payment  involving a tax or a  higher  tax  is<br \/>\nrequired.\n<\/p>\n<pre> ii)\t      xxx   xxx\n iii)\t     xxx    xxx\n iv)\t      xxx    xxx\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>    v) any payment for admission of a motor vehicle into the<br \/>\nauditorium of a cinema known as drive- in-theatre.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>    Section   3\t is  a\t charging  section.   The   relevant<br \/>\nprovisions  run\t as  under  :\t3.   Tax  on  payments\tfor<br \/>\nadmission  to  entertainments.\t (1) There shall be  levied<br \/>\nand  paid  to  the  State Government on\t each  payments\t for<br \/>\nadmission (excluding the amount of tax) to an entertainment,<br \/>\n[other\tthan  the  entertainment referred to  in  sub-clause\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)  of clause (e) of Section 2), entertainment tax at  70<br \/>\nper cent of such payment].\n<\/p>\n<p>    (2)\t Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-  section<br \/>\n(1)  there shall be levied and paid to the State  Government<br \/>\n(except\t as  otherwise\texpressly provided in this  Act)  on<br \/>\nevery  complimentary  ticket issued by the proprietor of  an<br \/>\nentertainment,\tthe  entertainments tax at  the\t appropriate<br \/>\nrate  specified\t in  sub-section  (1)  in  respect  of\tsuch<br \/>\nentertainment,\tas  if\tfull  payment\thad  been  made\t for<br \/>\nadmission  to  the entertainment according to the  class  of<br \/>\nseat  or  accommodation which the holder of such  ticket  is<br \/>\nentitled to occupy or use;  and for the purpose of this Act,<br \/>\nthe  holder  of\t such ticket shall be deemed  to  have\tbeen<br \/>\nadmitted on payment.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 runs as under:\t 6.  Manner<br \/>\nof  payment  of tax.   (1) [Save as otherwise  provided\t in<br \/>\nSection\t 4-A or 4-B, the entertainments tax shall be  levied<br \/>\nin  respect of each payment for admission or each admission]<br \/>\non  a complimentary ticket and shall be calculated and\tpaid<br \/>\non the number of admissions.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Entry  62  of List II of Seventh Schedule  empowers\t the<br \/>\nState  Legislature  to levy tax on luxuries,  entertainment,<br \/>\namusements, betting and gambling.  Under Entry 62, the State<br \/>\nLegislature  is\t competent  to\tenact law  to  levy  tax  on<br \/>\nluxuries  and  entertainment.\tThe incidence of tax  is  on<br \/>\nentertainment.\t Since entertainment necessarily implies the<br \/>\npersons\t entertained, therefore, the incidence of tax is  on<br \/>\nthe  person entertained.  Coming to the question whether the<br \/>\nState  Legislature is competent to levy tax on admission  of<br \/>\ncars\/motor  vehicles inside the Drive-in-Theatre  especially<br \/>\nwhen  it  is  argued that cars\/motor vehicles  are  not\t the<br \/>\npersons entertained.  Section 3 which is charging provision,<br \/>\nprovides  for  levy  of tax on each  payment  of  admission.<br \/>\nThus,  under the Act, the State is competent to levy tax  on<br \/>\neach  admission inside the Drive-in-Theatre.  The  challenge<br \/>\nto  the\t levy  is on the ground that the vehicle  is  not  a<br \/>\nperson\tentertained and, therefore, the levy is ultra vires.<br \/>\nIt cannot be disputed that the car or motor vehicle does not<br \/>\ngo  inside  the Drive-in-Theatre of its own.  It  is  driven<br \/>\ninside\tthe  Theatre  by the person entertained.   In  other<br \/>\nwords the person entertained is admitted inside the Drive-in<br \/>\nTheatre\t along\twith the car\/motor vehicle.  Thereafter\t the<br \/>\nperson\tentertained  while  sitting in his  car\t inside\t the<br \/>\nauditorium  views  the film exhibited therein.\t This  shows<br \/>\nthat  the person entertained is admitted inside the Drive-in<br \/>\nTheatre\t along\twith  the car\/motor vehicle.   This  further<br \/>\nshows that the person entertained carries his car inside the<br \/>\nDrive-in-Theatre   in  order  to   have\t better\t quality  of<br \/>\nentertainment.\tThe quality of entertainment also depends on<br \/>\nwith  what  comfort  the person entertained has\t viewed\t the<br \/>\ncinema\tfilms.\tThus, the quality of entertainment  obtained<br \/>\nby  a  person sitting in his car would be different  from  a<br \/>\nsquatter  viewing the film show.  The levy on  entertainment<br \/>\nvaries\twith  the  quality of comfort with  which  a  person<br \/>\nenjoys\tthe  entertainment inside the Drive-in-Theatre.\t  In<br \/>\nthe  present  case,  a person sitting in his  car  or  motor<br \/>\nvehicle\t  has  luxury  of  viewing   cinema  films  in\t the<br \/>\nauditorium.   It is the variation in the comfort offered  to<br \/>\nthe  person  entertained for which the State Government\t has<br \/>\nlevied\tentertainment  tax on the person  entertained.\t The<br \/>\nreal  nature  and character of impugned levy is not  on\t the<br \/>\nadmission  of cars or motor vehicles, but the levy is on the<br \/>\nperson\tentertained who takes the car inside the theatre and<br \/>\nwatches\t the  film  while  sitting  in\this  car.   We\tare,<br \/>\ntherefore,  of the view that in pith and substance the\tlevy<br \/>\nis  on\tthe  person  who is entertained.   Whatever  be\t the<br \/>\nnomenclature  of levy, in substance, the levy under  heading<br \/>\nadmission of vehicle is a levy on entertainment and not on<br \/>\nadmission  of vehicle inside the Drive-in-Theatre.  As\tlong<br \/>\nas in pith and substance the levy satisfies the character of<br \/>\nlevy, i.e.  entertainment, it is wholly immaterial in what<br \/>\nname  and  form it is imposed.\tThe word entertainment\tis<br \/>\nwide  enough to comprehend in it, the luxury or comfort with<br \/>\nwhich  a person entertains himself.  Once it is found  there<br \/>\nis a nexus between the legislative competence and subject of<br \/>\ntaxation,  the levy is justified and valid.  We,  therefore,<br \/>\nfind  that  the\t State Legislature was\tcompetent  to  enact<br \/>\nsub-clause  (v)\t of clause (i) of Section 2 of the Act.\t  We<br \/>\naccordingly hold that the impugned levy is valid.\n<\/p>\n<p>    For\t the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court fell in serious error in holding that sub- clause\n<\/p>\n<p>(v)  of\t clause (i) of Section 2 of the Act is\tultra  vires<br \/>\nEntry 62 of List II of Seventh Schedule.  Consequently, this<br \/>\nappeal deserves to be allowed.\tThe judgment under appeal is<br \/>\nset  aside.   The writ petition shall stand dismissed.\t The<br \/>\nappeal is allowed.  There shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors. &#8230; vs M\/S. Drive-In Enterprises &#8230; on 13 March, 2001 Author: V.N.Khare Bench: V.N. Khare, Ruma Pal CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4319 of 1991 PETITIONER: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA &amp; ORS. APPELLANTS Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. DRIVE-IN ENTERPRISES RESPONDENT DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/03\/2001 BENCH: V.N. Khare [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-184988","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors. ... vs M\/S. Drive-In Enterprises ... on 13 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors. ... vs M\/S. Drive-In Enterprises ... on 13 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-21T23:01:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors. &#8230; vs M\\\/S. Drive-In Enterprises &#8230; on 13 March, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-21T23:01:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3044,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001\",\"name\":\"The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors. ... vs M\\\/S. Drive-In Enterprises ... on 13 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-21T23:01:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors. &#8230; vs M\\\/S. Drive-In Enterprises &#8230; on 13 March, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors. ... vs M\/S. Drive-In Enterprises ... on 13 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors. ... vs M\/S. Drive-In Enterprises ... on 13 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-21T23:01:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors. &#8230; vs M\/S. Drive-In Enterprises &#8230; on 13 March, 2001","datePublished":"2001-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-21T23:01:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001"},"wordCount":3044,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001","name":"The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors. ... vs M\/S. Drive-In Enterprises ... on 13 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-21T23:01:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-karnataka-ors-vs-ms-drive-in-enterprises-on-13-march-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Karnataka &amp; Ors. &#8230; vs M\/S. Drive-In Enterprises &#8230; on 13 March, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184988","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=184988"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184988\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184988"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184988"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184988"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}