<?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>2008 (8) TMI 1022 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310078</link>
    <description>Entry charges for access to a discotheque with recorded music and dancing facilities were treated as payment for admission to an entertainment under the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937. The HC applied the broad charging provision and inclusive definitions of both &quot;entertainment&quot; and &quot;payment for admission&quot;, holding that the discotheque had the required public character and amusement element. The fee was characterised as consideration for entry to the entertainment facility, not a mere membership charge, and the levy was upheld. The constitutional challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) was not pressed in argument.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2023 16:02:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=728159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 1022 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310078</link>
      <description>Entry charges for access to a discotheque with recorded music and dancing facilities were treated as payment for admission to an entertainment under the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1937. The HC applied the broad charging provision and inclusive definitions of both &quot;entertainment&quot; and &quot;payment for admission&quot;, holding that the discotheque had the required public character and amusement element. The fee was characterised as consideration for entry to the entertainment facility, not a mere membership charge, and the levy was upheld. The constitutional challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) was not pressed in argument.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310078</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>