<?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>2010 (8) TMI 878 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165942</link>
    <description>Inclusive definitions in the Madhya Pradesh Entertainments Duty and Advertisement Tax Act were held broad enough to bring direct-to-home services within &quot;entertainment&quot; and &quot;payment for admission&quot;, because charges for access, subscription, installation and related services were treated as taxable consideration for entertainment or access to it. The levy was also upheld as constitutionally valid: the State taxed the distinct aspect of entertainment under List II, while the Union&#039;s service tax on broadcasting operated on a different aspect, so pith and substance and aspect theory did not bar the levy. The existing statutory scheme was sufficient, and ejusdem generis did not confine the provisions to cable television.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 878 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165942</link>
      <description>Inclusive definitions in the Madhya Pradesh Entertainments Duty and Advertisement Tax Act were held broad enough to bring direct-to-home services within &quot;entertainment&quot; and &quot;payment for admission&quot;, because charges for access, subscription, installation and related services were treated as taxable consideration for entertainment or access to it. The levy was also upheld as constitutionally valid: the State taxed the distinct aspect of entertainment under List II, while the Union&#039;s service tax on broadcasting operated on a different aspect, so pith and substance and aspect theory did not bar the levy. The existing statutory scheme was sufficient, and ejusdem generis did not confine the provisions to cable television.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165942</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>