<?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>2000 (4) TMI 834 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197930</link>
    <description>A State may levy entertainment duty on cable television within its taxing field, because entertainment taxation remains a distinct legislative sphere and is not displaced by Union regulation of cable networks. The levy was upheld as a valid tax on entertainment, with the operator permitted as the collection point and the measure linked to television sets or collection charges so long as it retained a rational nexus to the subject of tax. The constitutional challenges also failed: the classification was held to have a rational basis, the tax was not a per se restraint on business, and no separate legislation or unlawful delegation of sovereign power was required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:33:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505055" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 834 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197930</link>
      <description>A State may levy entertainment duty on cable television within its taxing field, because entertainment taxation remains a distinct legislative sphere and is not displaced by Union regulation of cable networks. The levy was upheld as a valid tax on entertainment, with the operator permitted as the collection point and the measure linked to television sets or collection charges so long as it retained a rational nexus to the subject of tax. The constitutional challenges also failed: the classification was held to have a rational basis, the tax was not a per se restraint on business, and no separate legislation or unlawful delegation of sovereign power was required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197930</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>