Advertisement tax on mere signal retransmission fails when no independent exhibition or ad consideration is shown.

Advertisement tax could not be levied on a multi-system operator that merely retransmitted third-party television signals, because the charging provision applied only to advertisements exhibited for payment at a place of entertainment. The court found that the operator received programming from broadcasters and retransmitted it to local cable operators or subscribers, but there was no ? no, avoid non-English. It was not shown that the operator independently exhibited advertisements or received consideration for advertisements. As the taxable incidence was not brought within the statutory provision, the levy was without jurisdiction and the notice, demand and penalty were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether advertisement tax could be levied on a multi-system operator that merely retransmits television signals and does not itself exhibit advertisements at a place of entertainment or receive advertisement consideration.

Analysis: The statutory scheme levied advertisement tax on advertisements exhibited for payment at a place of entertainment. The definition of multi-system operator showed that the operator receives programming from broadcasters and retransmits it to local cable operators or subscribers. On the facts found, the petitioners only retransmitted signals of third-party channels and the respondents did not establish that the petitioners independently exhibited advertisements or received consideration for advertisements. As tax can be imposed only under authority of law, the respondents were required to bring the case within the charging provision and show that the taxable incidence occurred in the petitioners' hands. That was not demonstrated.

Conclusion: The levy of advertisement tax on the petitioners was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained. The impugned notice and consequential demand and penalty were quashed, and the petitioners succeeded.

---