TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Entertainment Tax Liability for Multi System Operators Upheld as 'Proprietors'</h1> <h3>Indusind Media & Commun. Ltd. and. another Versus Mamlatdar and others</h3> Indusind Media & Commun. Ltd. and. another Versus Mamlatdar and others - TMI, [2011] 44 VST 35 (SC), 2011 (15) SCC 294, 2011 (9) JT 62, 2011 (9) SCALE 150 Issues:1. Liability of Multi System Operators to pay Entertainment Tax2. Imposition of penalty on the appellantsAnalysis:1. Liability of Multi System Operators to pay Entertainment Tax:The appellants, who are Multi System Operators (MSO), argued that they are not liable to pay Entertainment Tax under the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act, 1977, as they are not providing entertainment directly to subscribers. However, the Supreme Court referred to a previous judgment in the case of STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. PURVI COMMUNICATIONS (P) LTD., 2005, where it was established that even MSOs are liable to pay Entertainment Tax. As the appellants transmit signals to cable operators who, in turn, provide entertainment to subscribers, the court concluded that the appellants are considered 'Proprietors' under the Act. Therefore, the liability of the appellants to pay Entertainment Tax was upheld without further consideration.2. Imposition of penalty on the appellants:The appellants contested the imposition of penalty under Section 9(3) of the Act, claiming that they were under a genuine belief that they did not fall under the definition of 'Proprietor' and, therefore, penalty imposition was unjust. They also argued that the penalty order violated the principles of natural justice as they were not given proper notice or opportunity to be heard. However, the court found no merit in these arguments. It was revealed that the appellants provided incorrect information regarding the total number of connections, despite repeated notices and requests. The authorities had issued notices before imposing the penalty, and the appellants failed to provide accurate information, attempting to evade payment of Entertainment Tax through willful misstatements and suppression of facts. Consequently, the court held that the penalty imposition was not a violation of natural justice principles.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, confirming the order passed by the Mamlatdar, and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants. No costs were awarded in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
