Cable TV transmission is outside "exhibition by means of video"; licensing fee liability needs clear statutory authority.

The Supreme Court of India construed "exhibition by means of video" under the Uttar Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 and the 1988 Rules to mean a public exhibition of moving pictures for admission by playing or replaying a prerecorded cassette through a video cassette player. It found that a cable operator's transmission of private video channels to subscribers was not exhibition "in public" within that statutory definition. The Court also reiterated that a fee or tax liability cannot arise without clear statutory authority, and that consent, undertaking, or partial compliance cannot expand a charging provision. On that construction, Rule 17(2) did not cover the activity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cable operator's transmission of private video channels fell within the expression "exhibition by means of video" under Section 2(aa) of the Uttar Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 so as to attract the licensing fee and additional fee under Rule 17 of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation of Exhibition by means of Video) Rules, 1988, and whether the demand raised under Rule 17(2) was valid.

Analysis: The provisions of the 1955 Act and the 1988 Rules were examined in their plain terms. "Exhibition by means of video" was defined as exhibition in public, on payment for admission, of moving pictures or series of pictures by playing or replaying a prerecorded cassette by means of a video cassette player. The respondent's activity was transmission of video channels to subscribers and not exhibition "in public" in the statutory sense. The Court also noted that a liability to pay fee or tax cannot be imposed in the absence of clear statutory sanction, and that consent, undertaking, or partial compliance could not enlarge the scope of the charging provision. On that construction, Rule 17(2) did not apply to the respondent's activity.

Conclusion: The demand of additional licence fee under Rule 17(2) was not sustainable and the respondent was not liable to pay the amount demanded.

---