<?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 (10) TMI 582 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172584</link>
    <description>State regulation of DTH-based television signal receiver agencies was upheld under the entertainment field because, in pith and substance, the amendments targeted entertainment and its regulation rather than telegraph or broadcasting apparatus. The Union entries on communication did not bar State legislation merely because modern technology was used as the medium, and no direct repugnancy was found. The licence charge imposed on receiver agencies was also sustained as a valid regulatory fee: a direct quid pro quo was not required where the levy operated to control the licensed activity, require compliance with conditions, and maintain records. The amendments and licence fee were therefore valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:35:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394665" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (10) TMI 582 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172584</link>
      <description>State regulation of DTH-based television signal receiver agencies was upheld under the entertainment field because, in pith and substance, the amendments targeted entertainment and its regulation rather than telegraph or broadcasting apparatus. The Union entries on communication did not bar State legislation merely because modern technology was used as the medium, and no direct repugnancy was found. The licence charge imposed on receiver agencies was also sustained as a valid regulatory fee: a direct quid pro quo was not required where the levy operated to control the licensed activity, require compliance with conditions, and maintain records. The amendments and licence fee were therefore valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172584</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>