Judgment :- Petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner society has established a snake park in 1980 in Parassinikkadavu for treatment purposes and to educate people about the reptiles, birds etc. Considering the educational and charitable purpose, the 2nd respondent Panchayat and exempted the petitioner society from payment of show tax/entertainment tax. By Ext.P1 letter the 3rd respondent Panchayat informed the petitioner that the Panchayat had withdrawn the exemption of tax granted and decided to impose a tax from 1-8-1996 along with a surcharge. Against the action of the Panchayat in withdrawing the exemption of tax and reimposing the tax, the petitioner society filed Ext.P4 appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, as per the direction in O.P.No.16234/96 filed by the petitioner society, after considering the appeal dismissed the appeal by Ext.P5 stating that the decision of the Panchayat was sustainable in law. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner society filed Ext.P6 revision before the 1st respondent, which was dismissed by Ext.P7 Government Order. Hence, this Original Petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not conducting any entertainment or show with the snakes on payment and the petitioner is not liable to pay any show tax or entertainment tax as per law. The activities of the petitioner do not come under the definition of “entertainment” or “show” as contemplated under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. The petitioner society is charging Rs.5 per adult and Rs.2 per child for entering the park and the amounts are utilized for expenses for animals and employees. 3. As the area, which was within the limits of the 3rd respondent, is now under the Municipality. Therefore, the Thaliparamba Municipality is impleaded as Additional 4th respondent in the party array. 4. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent-Municipality submits that the petitioner is conducting the show of snakes and other reptiles and collecting fee from general public as admission fee by selling tickets and thus tax liability is attracted under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Levy and Collection of Show Tax) Rules, 1995. 5. 5. Sub-section (4)(1) of Section 200 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act reads as follows:- Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Levy and Collection of Show Tax) Amendment Rules, 2003 reads as follows:- The term “show” is defined in Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary thus: to present to view: to exhibit: to display: to set forth: to cause or allow to be seen or known: to prove: to manifest: to indicate: to usher of conduct (with in, out, over, round, up). Further the term “show” connotes an element of performance like signing, dancing or such other activities. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in His Highness The Maharaja of Jaipur Museum Trust, City Palace, Jaipur V. The State of Rajasthan and another. (1972 Tax. L.R. 2428). In the above decision the Rajasthan High Court held that the fees levied by the museum for the purpose of meeting for the purpose of meeting the maintenance charges etc. could not be taxed under the Act. Learned counsel also relies on a decision of this Court reported in Veega Holidays & Parks P. Ltd. V. Kunnathunad Grama Panchayat & Ors. (2003 (2) KLJ 688) wherein this Court held that the appellant company, which was running an ‘Amusement Park’ was not liable to pay ‘Entertainment Tax’ to the respondent Panchayat. 7. In the above circumstances, this Court is not in a position to hold that the petitioner is liable to pay show tax as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and the Rules or even the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act. The very imposition of show tax against the petitioner is without any basis and it is not justifiable. Hence, Exts.P1, P1(a), P4, P5 and P7 are quashed. Therefore, this court declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay “show” tax as claimed by the respondents. The Original Petition is allowed. No costs.