It has come to my attention that the case content is missing. I need the case content to provide an accurate summary. Without the facts, issues, arguments, and court's reasoning, I cannot fulfill your request.

However, I can provide a template response based on the case title and court information you provided, anticipating the likely subject matter, and demonstrating the required format. Please provide the actual case content for a complete and accurate summary.

Short Summary

This case likely concerns a challenge to the validity of Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979, potentially arguing that it is unconstitutional or ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the state legislature. The final holding would determine whether Section 9 is upheld, struck down, or modified.

Facts

Hypothetical Facts: A cinema owner in Uttar Pradesh challenges Section 9 of the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979. The section likely deals with the collection or imposition of entertainment tax. The cinema owner alleges the tax is excessive, discriminatory, or violates fundamental rights.

Issues

• Whether Section 9 of the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979, is constitutionally valid.
• Whether the tax imposed under Section 9 is excessive or discriminatory.
• Whether Section 9 violates any fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, such as Article 14 (equality before the law) or Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business).

Petitioner's Arguments

Hypothetical Arguments: The petitioner (cinema owner) argues that the tax imposed under Section 9 is excessive and confiscatory, making it impossible to run a profitable business. They may argue the tax is discriminatory because it applies differently to different types of entertainment or different locations. They might also argue that the tax infringes on their right to carry on a business.

Respondent's Arguments

Hypothetical Arguments: The respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh) argues that Section 9 is a valid exercise of its legislative power to impose taxes on entertainments. They will likely argue that the tax is reasonable and necessary for generating revenue for public purposes. They will also argue that the classification of entertainments for tax purposes is based on a reasonable nexus and is not discriminatory.

Court's Reasoning

Hypothetical Reasoning: The Court would likely examine the legislative competence of the State to enact the law under the relevant entries in the State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. It would also consider whether the tax is a reasonable restriction on the petitioner's fundamental rights, balancing the state's interest in revenue generation with the individual's right to carry on a business. The court would also analyze if the classification for taxation is arbitrary and discriminatory.

Conclusion

Hypothetical Conclusion: The Court's ruling would either uphold Section 9, strike it down, or modify it. If upheld, the petitioner's challenge would be dismissed. If struck down, the State would be prohibited from enforcing Section 9. If modified, the Court would specify the changes required to make the section constitutionally valid.