<?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>2009 (3) TMI 1026 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183358</link>
    <description>Entertainment tax could not be levied on DTH service providers under the unamended U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 because the statute, as it stood at the relevant time, contained no provision authorising such a levy. The later amendment specifically including DTH broadcasting within the definition of entertainment confirmed that the earlier law did not cover it. Any issue of overlap between State entertainment tax and Union service tax became academic once the absence of statutory authority was established. The levy therefore failed for want of express legislative backing, and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2016 18:32:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430762" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 1026 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183358</link>
      <description>Entertainment tax could not be levied on DTH service providers under the unamended U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 because the statute, as it stood at the relevant time, contained no provision authorising such a levy. The later amendment specifically including DTH broadcasting within the definition of entertainment confirmed that the earlier law did not cover it. Any issue of overlap between State entertainment tax and Union service tax became academic once the absence of statutory authority was established. The levy therefore failed for want of express legislative backing, and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>