<?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>2011 (1) TMI 1267 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165107</link>
    <description>Activities such as go-karting, bowling, video games, billiards, pool and swimming pool access were treated as &quot;entertainment&quot; under the Punjab Entertainments Duty Act because the definition is inclusive and covers paid public admission to amusement, even where skill is involved. The statutory character of the levy was upheld, with the court rejecting the argument that an administrative decision could fix a lower rate or override the notified duty. It further held that the notifications were not invalid for want of draft publication, since the proviso permitted immediate issuance where necessary and official acts are presumed regular. The levy at the notified rates was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355335" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 1267 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165107</link>
      <description>Activities such as go-karting, bowling, video games, billiards, pool and swimming pool access were treated as &quot;entertainment&quot; under the Punjab Entertainments Duty Act because the definition is inclusive and covers paid public admission to amusement, even where skill is involved. The statutory character of the levy was upheld, with the court rejecting the argument that an administrative decision could fix a lower rate or override the notified duty. It further held that the notifications were not invalid for want of draft publication, since the proviso permitted immediate issuance where necessary and official acts are presumed regular. The levy at the notified rates was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165107</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>