https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167912 Cable television luxury tax was upheld as falling within Entry 62 of List II because the levy operated on subscriber-side entertainment and remained permissible despite concurrent service tax liability. The amended scheme, however, was struck down as discriminatory under Article 14 because the 7,500-connection cutoff bore no rational nexus to the object of taxing subscriber enjoyment, and the burden ultimately fell on subscribers rather than on operator size. The separate challenge based on direct-to-home operators failed as unsupported and largely academic. en-us Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2015 13:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167912 Cable television luxury tax was upheld as falling within Entry 62 of List II because the levy operated on subscriber-side entertainment and remained permissible despite concurrent service tax liability. The amended scheme, however, was struck down as discriminatory under Article 14 because the 7,500-connection cutoff bore no rational nexus to the object of taxing subscriber enjoyment, and the burden ultimately fell on subscribers rather than on operator size. The separate challenge based on direct-to-home operators failed as unsupported and largely academic. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167912