K. M. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) IT is unfortunate that in spite of a decision of this Court in Bhotwal Talkies v. State of Madhya Pradesh, M. P. No. 681/83, decided on 11-12-1984 (Indore), the State Government and its officers and servants are continuing to make illegal and excessive recoveries of entertainment duty from the film exhibition by persisting on their fanciful interpretation of S. 3 and other provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936, (for short, the "act"), and have forced them and their associations to file the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for similar reliefs. ( 2 ) THE petitioners 2 to 7 are film exhibitors of Sagar and the petitioner 1 is their association. The petitioners 8 and 9 are also film exhibitors, exhibiting their films at Jabalpur. The petitioner 10 claims itself to be a body interested in the welfare of the film exhibitors in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner 11 is a cine-goer. Their common grievance is that as interpreted in Bhotwal Talkies (supra), the term "payment for admission to the entertainment" used in S. 3 of the Act does not include the entertainment duty for the purpose of calculation of duty payable under the Act, but the respondents are including such duty in the said term and accordingly calculating and realising entertainment duty under the Act from the film exhibitors, which is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. Their prayer is, therefore, to restrain the respondents from realising higher entertainment duty than permissible under S. 3 of the Act; and to order them to refund the excess duty so far collected from the petitioners 2 to 9. ( 3 ) THE learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents opposed the petition and supported the calculation and recovery of entertainment duty under the Act on the basis of the total payment, inclusive of duty, made by a cine-goer for admission into the theatre, by contending that Bhotwal Talkies' case (supra) was wrongly decided by the Court. He also cited Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Sales Tax, M. P. , 1969 MPLJ 83 . in support of his contention. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned Advocate General cannot be accepted. Sub-sec. He also cited Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Sales Tax, M. P. , 1969 MPLJ 83 . in support of his contention. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned Advocate General cannot be accepted. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 3 of the Act enjoins upon every proprietor of an entertainment to pay a duty at the specified rates "in respect of every payment for admission to the entertainment". From these provisions it appears to us that the legislature intended to provide a method for calculation of the duty, payable by the proprietor of an entertainment under the Act on the basis of the admission fee, exclusive of entertainment duty, fixed by him for admission of a person into the place of entertainment. Under the Act, the proprietor is free to fix his own rates for admission to the entertainment, but he is bound to calculate and pay the duty at the rate and in the manner specified. Our conclusion is fortified from other provisions of the Act. The rates of additional duty under S. 3 (1-A) are specifically provided on the basis of "the payment for admission inclusive of entertainments duty payable under sub-sec. (1)". Sub-sec. (1-B) of S. 3, by way of caution, provides that "the additional duty payable under sub-section (1-A) shall not form part of the 'payment for admission' for the purposes of duty payable under sub-sec. (1 ). Similarly S. 4-B of the Act says that "no proprietor shall admit any person to an entertainment without payment for admission thereto unless the entertainment duty payable in respect thereof on the full value of the ticket for the class to which such person is admitted" has been paid. In other words, the proprietor has the discretion to admit any person to an entertainment without payment for admission thereto; but heis bound to pay the entertainment duty even in respect of persons admitted to an entertainment without payment for admission thereto. These provisions in the Act clearly indicate that what is meant by the words payment for admission" used in S. 3 (1) of the Act is not the actual payment made by the person going to an entertainment, but what he pays to the proprietor of an entertainment, exclusive of duty or additional duty, for admission to an entertainment. These provisions in the Act clearly indicate that what is meant by the words payment for admission" used in S. 3 (1) of the Act is not the actual payment made by the person going to an entertainment, but what he pays to the proprietor of an entertainment, exclusive of duty or additional duty, for admission to an entertainment. We may further observe that the entertainment duty, according to us is on the persons entertained and not on the persons providing the entertainment. The duty, which is being collected by the proprietor of an entertainment for and on behalf of the State Government, cannot, therefore, be included in the "payment for admission" realised by the proprietor, for the purpose of computing the entertainment duty under the the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that Bhotwal Talkies' case (supra) was correctly decided and needs no reconsideration. The decision of this Court in Delhi Cloth Cop. M. Co. Ltd. ( 1969 MPLJ 83 ,) (supra) relied on by the learned Advocate General is quite distinguishable. It was a case under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. While construing the meaning of "sale price" given in S. 2 (o), it was held that the "sale price" included the sales tax paid by a buyer to the dealer. The definition of "sale price" in S. 2 (o) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act is not in 'pari materia' with the definition of the term "payment for admission" given in S. 2 (d) of the M. P. Entertainments Duty and Advertisements Act. The decision cannot, therefore, be an authority for the proposition that "payment for admission" would include the entertainment duty paid by a cine-goer to the cinema-owner. The two definitions are reproduced hereinbelow for the purpose of comparison : section 2 (o) M. P. General Sales Tax Act :" 'sale price' means the amount payable to a dealer as valuable consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to ordinary trade practice but including any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time or before delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation when such cost is separately charged and the expression 'purchase price' shall be construed accordingly. "section 2 (d) M. P. Entertainments Duty and Advertisement Act :"'payment for admission' includes any payment made by a person who having been admitted to one part or a place of entertainment, is subsequently admitted to another part there of for admission to which a payment involving duty or more duty is required and any payment for seats or other accommodation in a place of entertainment. "the petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. ( 5 ) IN the result, this petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The respondents are restrained from including entertainment duty in the term "payment for admission" for the purpose of computing the duty under the M. P. Entertainments Duty and Advertisements Act and are directed to refund the excess amount of duty realised from the petitioners 2 to 9 after the date of decision of Bhotwal Talkies' case (supra), as there was absolutely no justification for such realisation after the said decision of this Court. The petitioners shall get their costs from the respondents. Counsel's fee Rs. 250/-, if already certified. ( 6 ) THE outstanding amount of security shall be refunded to the petitioners. Petition allowed. .