Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 19345 of 2004, 19368 of 2004, 20002, 20003 & 20005 of 2004 and 443 of 2005, challenging the levy of entertainment duty under The Punjab Entertainments Duty Act, 1955 (for short the Act) as applicable to the State of Haryana. 2. In C.W.P. No. 19345 of 2004, the petitioner is a private limited Company, which has introduced and started a new activity of motor driving captioned Cyclone, Go-Karting at Faridabad. It is stated by the petitioner that the aim of the said activity is to educate and train people; to improve their driving skills and to teach the discipline skills during driving and competitions around any given track. 3. In all the cases, the petitioners have established resorts providing facilities for swimming, games of billiards, pool etc. and the entry is limited to members, who pay their subscription amount in lump-sum or on monthly/yearly basis. The issue in all these petitions is common as to whether such activity carried out by the persons, who are participating in the sports or such like activity, are liable to pay entertainment duty under the Act. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the entertainment duty is payable by a person, who is being entertained i.e. the viewers of a sport activity, but one who is performing theatre or art or participates in artistic or participating in the sporting activity, is not liable to pay any entertainment duty, as he is a person who is entertaining the others. The members are the performers and, therefore, the entertainment duty is not payable by the performers, but by the viewers. In other words, the entertainment duty is payable by the third persons and not the participants themselves. 5. Before we examine the said contention in little detail, certain provisions of the Act are required to be reproduced: 2. The members are the performers and, therefore, the entertainment duty is not payable by the performers, but by the viewers. In other words, the entertainment duty is payable by the third persons and not the participants themselves. 5. Before we examine the said contention in little detail, certain provisions of the Act are required to be reproduced: 2. Definitions.- In this Act unless the context otherwise requires- XXX XXX XXX XXX (d) entertainment includes any exhibition, performance, amusement, game, sport or race which persons are ordinarily admitted on payment; (e) payment for admission includes - (i) any payment made by a person admitted to any part of a place of entertainment and in a case where such person is subsequently admitted to another part thereof for admission to which an additional payment is required, such additional payment, whether actually made or not; (ii) in case of free, surreptitious, unauthorized or concessional entry, whether with or without the knowledge of the proprietor, the payment which would have been made if the person concerned had been admitted on payment of the full charges ordinarily chargeable for such admission; (iii) any payment for any purpose whatsoever connected with an entertainment which a person is required to make as a condition of attending or continuing to attend the entertainment in addition to the payment, if any, for admission to the entertainment. XXX XXX XXX XXX (i) ticket means the pass or token for the purpose of securing admission to an entertainment. 3. Duty on payments for admission to entertainment: (1) A person admitted to an entertainment shall be liable to pay an entertainments duty at a rate, not exceeding one hundred and twenty five percent of the amount of payment for admission which the Government may specify, by a notification in this behalf, and the said duty shall be collected by the proprietor and rendered to the Government in the manner prescribed. 6. It may be noticed that the tax @ 125% has since been reduced to 25% vide notification dated 29.6.2001 in respect of other entertainments other than picture, cinematography exhibitions. 7. In the writ petition filed by M/s Chrysalis International (P) Ltd., the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by the Honble Supreme Court on 1.11.2002, whereby the matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority under the Act in the case of petitioner itself. 7. In the writ petition filed by M/s Chrysalis International (P) Ltd., the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by the Honble Supreme Court on 1.11.2002, whereby the matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority under the Act in the case of petitioner itself. The learned Counsel also relied upon M/s Geeta Enterprises and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., arising out of U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937 to contend that the petitioner is not liable to pay the duty. In the said judgment, playing of a video game on a machine by making payment according to time spent on the machine, was found to be an entertainment. The said judgment was relied upon by the learned Appellate Authority, to return a finding that the games/sports where the persons are ordinarily admitted on payment, is entertainment, liable to entertainment duty under the Act. It was found that the games/sports offered by the appellants are similar to the video games so far as the definition of entertainment is concerned and such games/sports are covered under the entertainment defined in the Act. It was also noticed that the appellants before the Appellate Authority have not paid any tax during the Assessment Years 1996-97, 1997-98, but paid tax @ 20% during the Assessment Year 1998-99. The Appellate Authority rejected the contention that duty @ 20% is to be deposited in pursuance of decision in the office of Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner dated 30.7.1998. It was found that there is no evidence of such unanimous decision or the approval by the then Prohibition, Excise and Taxation Commissioner to the effect that the entertainment duty shall be 20%. It was further held that even if there is any documentary proof, it could have no legal force. With the said finding, the appeal was dismissed. Subsequent revision filed on behalf of the petitioner, was dismissed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner on 12.7.2004. It is the said order, which is the under challenge in the writ petition on the ground that the entertainment duty is not leviable on the game of Go-karting. Similar is the argument in the other cases. 8. Subsequent revision filed on behalf of the petitioner, was dismissed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner on 12.7.2004. It is the said order, which is the under challenge in the writ petition on the ground that the entertainment duty is not leviable on the game of Go-karting. Similar is the argument in the other cases. 8. In the written statement filed, it has been pleaded that the State Legislature is fully competent by virtue of entries 33 and 62 of the List-11 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution to define entertainment and provided for levy of entertainment duty. It was pointed out that the game/sports of Go Karting is fully covered under the definition of entertainment as held by the Honble Supreme Court in Geeta Enterprises case (supra). It has been further pointed out that the petitioner has established entertainment centre within its premises and is engaged in games/sports offered to be played by the visitors on payment of fixed but different rates of admission. It is alleged that the activity of the petitioner is fully covered under the term entertainment. It has been further pointed out that the defnition of the term entertainment is inclusive and not exclusive, which means that the term entertainment could be expended to various other type of entertainments which were similar to the entertainment of various types mentioned in Section 2(d) of the Act. Thus, it was pointed out that the petitioners are liable to pay the entertainment duty on account of playing of the game of Go-Karting." 9. In Geeta Enterprises case (supra), the petitioner has installed a machine with the video screen in its Parlour. The petitioner permitted the persons to enter the premises without any charge to view a show on the video which consisted mainly of sports games etc. played on the screen of the video. According to the petitioner he did not charge any admission fee, but the Electronic Machine imported from Japan having educational value for persons playing the games were meant to provide educational entertainment by showing sea warfare, battle field, space warfare sports and many other things which were likely to provide both education and entertainment to the viewers, particularly to young children. The mechanism for playing the machine was so designed that a coin of 50 naya paise was to be inserted into a strong box built within the machine, the keys of which were with the manufacturer. After the show was over a representative of the manufacturing company would come, open the box, collect the money and pay the share of the hirer petitioner out of the sale proceeds. Though the Honble Supreme Court found that the part of video show was of some educational value, but as per the definition of entertainment in the Act, it was held that the show must pass the following tests to fall within the ambit of the Section 3 of the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937: 1. that the show, performance, game or sport, etc. must contain a public colour in that the show should be open to public in a hall, theatres or any other place where members of the public are invited to attend the show. 2. that the show may provide any kind of amusement whether sport, game or even a performance which requires some amount of skill. In some of the cases, it has been held that even holding a tombola in a club hall amounts to entertainment although the playing of tombola does, to some extent, involve a little skill. 3. that even if admission to the hall may be free but if the exhibitor derives some benefit in terms of money it would be deemed to be an entertainment. 4. that the duration of the show or the identity of the person who operates the machine and derives pleasure or entertainment or that the operator who pays himself feels entertained is wholly irrelevant in judging the actual meaning of the word entertainment as used in Section 2(3) of the Act. So also the fact that the income derived from the show is shared by one or more persons who run the show. The above said tests were laid down after finding that the word entertainment is neither a scientific nor a technical term. 10 Apart from the aforesaid judgment, in Liberty Talkies and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., the Honble Supreme Court was seized of the question of payment of entertainment duty from the visitors to a theatre. The above said tests were laid down after finding that the word entertainment is neither a scientific nor a technical term. 10 Apart from the aforesaid judgment, in Liberty Talkies and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., the Honble Supreme Court was seized of the question of payment of entertainment duty from the visitors to a theatre. It was found that even where the ticket is not issued for an individual show but payment is received by means of a lump sum as subscription or contribution to any society, or by season ticket or for the right of admission to a series of entertainments or during a certain period of time, or for any privilege right, facility, thing combined with the right of admission to any entertainment without further payment or at a reduced charge, the entertainment duty is payable on the lump sum. 11. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patel Brothers and Co. Ltd., the word entertainment appearing in Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was found to connote something which may be beneficial for the mental or physical well being but is not essential or indispensable for human existence. A bare necessity, like ordinary meal is essential or indispensable and, therefore, is not entertainment. If such bare necessity is offered by another, it is hospitality but not entertainment. 12. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we find that the word entertainment has to be interpreted in the context in which it is used. Broadly, the ordinary parlance of entertainment can be bifurcated into two categories. The one is beyond any doubt i.e. where the players or the artists are performing in front of the audience with a view to entertain them. Even a single person, if being entertained, would be liable to pay entertainment duty, which is required to be collected by the proprietors of the places, where such entertainment is being offered. It is the said concept, which we encounter every day in life. Watching movie in a cinema theatre on which the entertainment duty is charged is a part of the costs of the ticket or when a sporting activity is watched by way of entry ticket. It is the said concept, which we encounter every day in life. Watching movie in a cinema theatre on which the entertainment duty is charged is a part of the costs of the ticket or when a sporting activity is watched by way of entry ticket. Such activity of sport would also be an entertainment for the persons, who have gone to watch that sport on purchase of ticket on a price which is exclusive an entertainment duty. As per the judgment in Geeta Enterprise case (supra), the playing of video game on a machine is an entertainment for the player although he is the sole viewer. Thus, following the judgment in Geeta Enterprises case (supra), it can be said that even in the case of single viewer, a sport activity attracts entertainment duty. 13. At this stage, we may clarify that in a game or a sport where the entry is by way of tickets, the person responsible for such show or a game, is liable to pay entertainment duty in respect of the viewers, who are watching the show. But the players or the artists, who are entertaining their guests or the audience, are not liable to pay entertainment duty as they are not the persons, who are admitted on payment to entertainment as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act. Thus, the performers on the stage of theatre or the players in the playground are not admitted to the theatre or to the play ground on the issuance of a ticket, but they are the source of entertainment or and are entertaining others. May be such players or the artists enjoy their games they play or the play which they stage. May be, it is done for hobby or for payment. But the fact remains that he is a performer so as to entertain the other persons. Thus, in such a situation, entertainment duty would not be payable by an artist or player. 14. Keeping in view the tests laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Geeta Enterprises case (supra), we shall broadly examine each activity undertaken by the petitioners for the purposes of examining whether such activity is liable for entertainment duty. 15. Firstly, we will examine the activity of Go-Karting which is subject matter of C.W.P. Nos. 19345 and 19368 of 2004. 15. Firstly, we will examine the activity of Go-Karting which is subject matter of C.W.P. Nos. 19345 and 19368 of 2004. In Go-Karting, the player pays fixed amount for playing the game for a limited time. By playing the game on a machine to be provided by the petitioner, he is entertaining himself and thus, the test No. 4 as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Geeta Enterprises case (supra) is satisfied. As per the said condition, the operator, who himself feels entertained by playing the game of Go-Karting is also entertaining himself and thus, liable to pay entertainment duty. The other condition i.e. the game is open to public is not disputed. Similarly, the playing of the game of Go-Karting may involve some skill, but it also provides amusement to the operator of the game. 16. The activities of Bowling Alley, Video games, Billiards and Pool Table, subject matter of C.W.P. Nos. 20002, 20003 and 20005 of 2004 and the activities Billiards, Bowling alley, Swimming pool etc., subject matter of C.W.P. No. 443 of 2005, are also covered by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court M/s Geeta Enterprises case (supra) as such games or sports are open to the members of public, though restricted to members, who have paid the subscription either in lump-sum or on monthly or yearly basis. Such games provide amusement to the players and also satisfy test No. 3, laid down in the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in M/s Geeta Enterprises case (supra), as the members are entertained by playing such games. 17. Relying upon the Honble Supreme Court judgment in Geeta Enterprises case (supra), we are of the opinion that the entertainment duty is payable by the petitioners on the various activities as detailed in the writ petitions as discussed above. 18. At this stage, other arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are required to be examined. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the meeting of the Excise and Taxation Officers, it was decided to charge 20% of entertainment duty, therefore, levy of entertainment duty @ 125% and 25% from the date of notification i.e. 29.6.2001, cannot be imposed upon the petitioners. 19. The said argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. 19. The said argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. Under the scheme of the Act, there is no power with the Excise and Taxation Commissioner to reduce the rate of duty payable under Section 3 of the Act. Any variation in the duty is to be made by following the procedure laid down under Section 3 of the Act. Admittedly, no such procedure was initiated so as to modify the rate of entertainment duty @ 20%. Consequently, there cannot be any variation in the levying of rate of entertainment duty on the basis of the decision having been taken by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner. Unless the procedure laid down, as aforesaid, is complied with, the rate of levy of entertainment duty could not have been varied. Still further, even if any decision has been taken, there cannot be any estoppel against the Statute. Consequently, the said argument is without any merit. 20. It is also argued that the entertainment duty @ 125% is being claimed from the petitioner, though the duty has been reduced to 25% vide notification dated 29.6.2001. In respect of the said argument, suffice it to say that prior to notification dated 29.6.2001, the entertainment duty was 125% but the same was reduced to 25% on 29.6.2001. Therefore, prior to 29.6.2001, the entertainment duty @ 125% would be payable, but thereafter, it would be payable @ 25%. 21. Another argument raised is that the notification imposing entertainment duty @ 125% was not published keeping in view the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. It is also contended that there was no draft publication of the notification as contemplated in Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Act and thereafter, the levy of duty @ 125% or 25% is in contravention of the statutory provisions. 22. The file pertaining to levy of 125% entertainment duty in terms of the notification dated 1.9.1977 is admittedly not available, in view of the averments made in the , written statement itself. The proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Act, contemplates that if the Government considers that an order specifying entertainment duty should be brought into force at once, the final notification can be issued without previous publication. The proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Act, contemplates that if the Government considers that an order specifying entertainment duty should be brought into force at once, the final notification can be issued without previous publication. The notifications dated 1.9.1977 and 29.6.2001, provide that the State Government has published the notification in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 read with first proviso of Sub-section (2) of Section (3) of the Act. Meaning thereby that the publication of a draft notification has been dispensed with for fixation of rate of entertainment duty. Thus, the argument that the draft notification was not published, is not tenable as the same was expressly dispensed with. Similarly, if the original file is not traceable, it does not mean that the notification was not published. The fact remains that the notification dated 1.9.1977 clearly recites about the satisfaction of the Government dispensing with the draft notification. The recitals in the notification are deemed to be correct. The official acts done in the course of official business, are presumed to be correct. 23. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petitions. Consequently, the same are dismissed.