<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (11) TMI 540 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151704</link>
    <description>Hotel and restaurant associations receiving television signals for guests were treated as consumers and subscribers for the purpose of Tribunal proceedings, because the hotel management was the contracting recipient of the service and use in hospitality business did not by itself exclude them. The telecom tariff regime for broadcasting and cable services was held applicable to hotels, as the framework did not create a final exclusion for commercial subscribers and uniform rate control continued unless validly differentiated by the regulator. The Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was rejected, though disputed factual questions concerning some hotel members were remitted for further proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 15:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 540 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151704</link>
      <description>Hotel and restaurant associations receiving television signals for guests were treated as consumers and subscribers for the purpose of Tribunal proceedings, because the hotel management was the contracting recipient of the service and use in hospitality business did not by itself exclude them. The telecom tariff regime for broadcasting and cable services was held applicable to hotels, as the framework did not create a final exclusion for commercial subscribers and uniform rate control continued unless validly differentiated by the regulator. The Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was rejected, though disputed factual questions concerning some hotel members were remitted for further proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>