<?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>1996 (11) TMI 458 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172567</link>
    <description>Cable television combines expressive activity with business, so entertainment tax may be imposed on the business element without violating freedom of speech and expression. The tax is unconstitutional only if it is shown to be designed to suppress the protected speech or is so onerous that it destroys the right itself; no such material was shown here, so the levy was sustained. The rate of tax was also not excessive or discriminatory, because an indirect tax can be passed on to subscribers and cable operators were not similarly situated to Doordarshan for tax parity. The levy was therefore treated as valid and non-discriminatory.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:29:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 458 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172567</link>
      <description>Cable television combines expressive activity with business, so entertainment tax may be imposed on the business element without violating freedom of speech and expression. The tax is unconstitutional only if it is shown to be designed to suppress the protected speech or is so onerous that it destroys the right itself; no such material was shown here, so the levy was sustained. The rate of tax was also not excessive or discriminatory, because an indirect tax can be passed on to subscribers and cable operators were not similarly situated to Doordarshan for tax parity. The levy was therefore treated as valid and non-discriminatory.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172567</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>