https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189607 Luxury tax on the luxury element of Direct-to-Home broadcasting services fell within the State's legislative competence under Entry 62 of List II, because the levy was directed at the enjoyment aspect of the service and not at the mode of collection. However, taxing DTH service providers alone while excluding cable operators, despite the similarity in entertainment content supplied to subscribers, failed the Article 14 test of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. The selective levy on DTH operators was therefore discriminatory and unsustainable, while the broader taxing power of the State was upheld. Consequential refund relief was noted, subject to the statutory bar against unjust enrichment. en-us Tue, 08 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jan 2017 06:45:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189607 Luxury tax on the luxury element of Direct-to-Home broadcasting services fell within the State's legislative competence under Entry 62 of List II, because the levy was directed at the enjoyment aspect of the service and not at the mode of collection. However, taxing DTH service providers alone while excluding cable operators, despite the similarity in entertainment content supplied to subscribers, failed the Article 14 test of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. The selective levy on DTH operators was therefore discriminatory and unsustainable, while the broader taxing power of the State was upheld. Consequential refund relief was noted, subject to the statutory bar against unjust enrichment. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 08 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189607