<?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 (12) TMI 422 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310076</link>
    <description>Entertainment tax on video cassette recorder and video cassette player exhibitions under Section 6-A was upheld as constitutionally valid because entertainment through video equipment on admission fell within the charging provision. The Court accepted that the Legislature could use gross-collection or other presumptive collection methods, and treated the classification based on theatre nature and locality as a permissible legislative distinction. The scheme was also supported by an option for the proprietor and an assessment and payment machinery. The challenge under Article 14 failed, and the impugned rule challenge was not sustained except as specifically addressed in the judgment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2023 15:44:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=728156" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 422 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310076</link>
      <description>Entertainment tax on video cassette recorder and video cassette player exhibitions under Section 6-A was upheld as constitutionally valid because entertainment through video equipment on admission fell within the charging provision. The Court accepted that the Legislature could use gross-collection or other presumptive collection methods, and treated the classification based on theatre nature and locality as a permissible legislative distinction. The scheme was also supported by an option for the proprietor and an assessment and payment machinery. The challenge under Article 14 failed, and the impugned rule challenge was not sustained except as specifically addressed in the judgment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>