TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 1048
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BB and 18BBBBB of the Rajasthan Entertainments and Advertisements Tax Rules, 1957. 2. It is the claim of the petitioner that it is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is providing direct-to-home (DTH) broadcasting services all over India including the State of Rajasthan. It is the claim of the petitioner that it had been granted licence under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Indian Wireless Telegraph Act, 1933 by, the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to establish, operate a DTH platform and to provide DTH services on the terms and conditions as specified in the licence agreement to establish. It is the further claim of the petitioner that the Government of India granted a statutory licence dated March 24, 2006 to the petitioner under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Indian Wireless Telegraph Act, 1933 on the terms and conditions contained in the licence agreement for a period of 10 years. The petitioner has paid Rs. 10 crores to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as an initial non-refundable entry-fee and furnished a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 40 crores valid for the du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uarely covered by the judgment rendered by the honourable apex court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Purvi Communication P. Ltd. reported in [2005] 140 STC 154 (SC): [2005] 4 RC 543 AIR 2005 SC 1849. He further contended that even the petitioner raised this issue in the High Court of the Punjab and Haryana in the case of Tata Sky Limited v. State of Punjab reported in [2011] 37 VST 1 (P and H) where writ petition was dismissed. He further relied upon a judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Dish T.V. India Limited v. State of Uttarakhand reported in [2009] 26 VST 649 (Uttarakhand) and also a judgment of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Bharti Telemedia Limited v. State of Jharkhand reported in [2014] 70 VST 126 (Jharkhand) and contended that the similar controversy stood resolved in the petitioner's own case then on the same analogy the present petitions deserve dismissal. 7. The officer appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the levy of entertainment tax by the respondents is against the law. He was, however, not in a position to controvert the judgments relied upon by the officer on behalf of respondent particularly in the case of petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Commissioner. R. 18BBBBB. Payment of tax for direct to home broadcasting service.--(1) The proprietor of a direct to home broadcasting service liable to pay tax in accordance with section 4AAA of the Act, shall maintain a true and correct record of the number of subscribers, the name and address of each subscriber, the amount received from each subscriber and the amount of tax. (2) The proprietor of a direct to home broadcasting service shall be required to deposit tax payable within seven days of the close of each calendar month. (3) The proprietor of a direct to home broadcasting service shall file quarterly return in form S7 in duplicate, within fifteen days of the end of each quarter along with proof of deposit of tax payable under the Act." 11. The above amendment was introduced from February 25, 2008 under the aforesaid Acts/Rules and by this amendment direct-to-home (DTH) service was brought in the ambit of entertainment tax and to pay entertainment tax. 12. This issue came up, as referred to earlier, before the honourable apex court in the case of Purvi Communication P. Ltd. [2005] 140 STC 154 (SC): [2005] 4 RC 543: AIR 2005 SC 1849 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the legal liability to pay tax falls has also been clearly and unambiguously mentioned in the charging section. The rates of tax have been sought to be specified by the notification. The measure of tax is the 'gross receipt' on the basis of which the person is saddled with the liability to pay tax. There is no uncertainty or vagueness of the legislative scheme. The tax levied by sub-section (4a) of section 4A of the said 1982 Act does not interfere with the fundamental rights guaranteed under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution or is violative of article 19(1)(g). 40. We also see no substance in the submission that the impugned legislation impinges on the field occupied by the Central legislation. The aforesaid Central legislation has been enacted to regulate the operation of cable television network in the country and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto whereas the State legislation is for levy of entertainment tax on entertainment within the legislative field exclusively assigned to the State Legislature under entry 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Thus the objects sought to be achieved by two different Acts enacted under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transmitting the signal for exhibition of any performance, film or any other programme telecast and the aggregate of such prices or amounts is the gross receipt of respondent No. 1 in relation to any month or part thereof." 13. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in petitioner's own case Tata Sky Limited [2011] 37 VST 1 (P and H) while upholding the levy of entertainment tax after elaborate discussion and considering various judgments held as under (pages 34 and 35 in 37 VST):- "26. We may now deal with the question raised in the present case in the light of the principles summed up in the preceding paras. 27. Levy under section 3 is called entertainment duty calculated at a percentage of payment for admission to entertainment. It is collected from the provider of entertainment which includes person responsible for management thereof. Entertainment provided with the aid of dish relating to DHTV has been specifically included in the levy by amendment in the year 2010. Entry 62 of List II permits tax on entertainment. Thus, tax on entertainment which squarely falls under entry 62 cannot be held to be encroachment of List I relating to tax on service. Levy of ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hand) had also an occasion to consider the similar issue as the said company was also providing DTH broadcasting services to its subscribers throughout the country and while observing observed"The levy of entertainment tax has been subject-matter of legislation of different States and the State Legislature such as State of Uttarakhand, State of Punjab, State of Delhi, State of Orissa and also the State of Uttar Pradesh as well. The impugned levy of the different State Legislatures have been upheld by the various judgments rendered by the respective High Court which have been relied upon by the respondent-State such as in the case of Tata Sky Limited v. State of Uttarakhand [2013] 62 VST 5 (Uttarakhand), Tata Sky Limited v. State of Punjab [2011] 37 VST 1 (P and H), Bharti Tele-media Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi [2011] 44 VST 262 (Delhi) and Tata Sky Ltd. v. State of Orissa [2014] 2 VST-OL 468 (Orissa)." Thus, it is noticed that even the petitioner has challenged similar levy in the State of Uttarakhand, Punjab and Haryana and Orissa and all the three High Courts have upheld the levy in petitioner's own case. It was further held as under (Bharti Telemedia Ltd. [2014] 70 VS....