Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>State's Authority Upheld: Entertainment Tax Applicable to MSOs under Adhiniyam 2011</h1> The High Court upheld the State Government's authority to impose entertainment tax on Multi-System Operators (MSOs) under the Adhiniyam 2011. Citing ... Constitutional validity of Entertainment tax on MSO at the rate of 20 per cent of the turnover - Their main contention is that imposition of entertainment tax on them is beyond the legislative competence of the State Government as they are already subjected to service tax for their services under section 65(105)(zs) of the Finance Act, 1994. - According to them, entertainment tax is also contrary to the settled law and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 246 and 265 of the Constitution of India. - held that:- In State of West Bengal v. Purvi Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2005 (3) TMI 438 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) the Supreme Court has held that the State Government has legislative competence to levy entertainment tax through cable television network on MSOs as they have direct and close nexus with entertainment provided to viewers and they are the providers of entertainment. The Supreme Court has also held that levy of such entertainment tax on MSOs is neither discriminatory nor violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. This decision was later followed by the Supreme Court in Indusind Media & Commun. Ltd. v. Mamlatdar (Supra) which was a matter from the State of Gujarat and an entertainment tax was levied on the MSOs. In this case, the Supreme Court has held that since such MSOs are connected to an organization of entertainment, they fall within the meaning of “proprietor” and the issue that MSOs are liable to pay entertainment tax is not longer res integra. Issues:Challenge to the vires of sections of the Adhiniyam 2011 regarding entertainment tax imposition on Multi-System Operators (MSOs) - Legislative competence of State Government, violation of settled law and constitutional provisions.Analysis:The petitioners, Multi-System Operators (MSOs), contested the imposition of entertainment tax under specific sections of the Madhya Pradesh Vilasita, Manoranjan, Amod Evam Vigyapan Kar Adhiniyam, 2011 (Adhiniyam 2011). They argued that the State Government exceeded its legislative competence as they were already subject to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioners claimed that the entertainment tax imposition was against established legal principles and contravened Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 246, and 265 of the Constitution of India.The State Government, in response, defended the validity of the Adhiniyam 2011 provisions that levied entertainment tax on MSOs. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in State of West Bengal v. Purvi Communication Pvt. Ltd. and subsequent rulings, supporting the State's authority to impose entertainment tax on MSOs and cable operators.The Adhiniyam 2011 defined key terms related to entertainment tax, including 'cable operator,' 'entertainment,' and 'proprietor.' Section 6(1) of the Adhiniyam outlined the charges and rate of tax, specifying a 20% tax on entertainment turnover for proprietors.Referring to the Supreme Court decisions in Purvi Communication Pvt. Ltd. and Indusind Media & Commun. Ltd. cases, the High Court concluded that MSOs, being integral to providing entertainment to viewers, were liable to pay entertainment tax. The Court upheld the State's legislative competence to levy such taxes on MSOs, emphasizing their role as providers of entertainment.In light of the Supreme Court precedents and the direct nexus between MSOs and entertainment provision, the High Court found no grounds to deem the challenged provisions as ultra vires the Constitution. The Court rejected the argument that service tax liability exempted MSOs from entertainment tax obligations under the State Act, dismissing the petitions without costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found