TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 607
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its corporate office in Mumbai and Branch Office at Hyderabad. 3. The petitioner claims to be one of the largest Master System Cable Operator (M.S.O.) and it provides Digital Cable Services comprising of Digital Channels, Movies, etc., with the State-of-Art distribution set-ups. It provides very cost-effective technologically advanced set-top boxes which enable the subscribers to have access to other Value Added Services provided by it which include Video-on- Demand, Gaming, E-Commerce, etc., and the entire system is routed through local cable operators who reach the end-consumers. 4. The State of Telangana had adopted the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e as per the Vigilance and Enforcement report, and the material evidence available on record showed that a number of connections given by M/s. Sun 18 Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. to the assessees which was admitted by the said party. 11. But, by mid-2017 the petitioner contend that it had closed its business in the State of Telangana and had vacated its business premises, though this was not intimated to the 1st respondent. It claims that it had sent all the records and books of accounts to its corporate office at Mumbai and that the corporate office could not immediately respond to the Revision Show-cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent and it sought time to file objections. 12. The 2nd respondent granted such time, but since the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner. 20. On 29.05.2020, the Stay application was heard by the 3rd respondent, and it was dismissed by it on 30.05.2020 through the impugned order passed in Appeal No.A/36/19-20-Entertainment Tax vide A.D.C. Order No.1002. 21. The petitioner contended that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the said stay application were considered by the 3rd respondent, and the 3rd respondent merely stated that he perused the impugned orders, went through the Grounds of the Stay petition, and also heard arguments of authorized representative who reiterated the Grounds of Appeal; that the authorized representative did not produce related material evidence in support of his contention; and so, he rejected the Stay application. 22. The co....