TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled by the Respondent set aside the order dated 11.5.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 671 of 2010 and quashed that part of the demand order dated 30.4.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar, whereby a license fee of Rs. 11,88,500/- was demanded from the Respondent. 3. The brief matrix of facts is that the Respondent is a Cable Television Network Operator in Haridwar as defined Under Section 2(aa) of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. He obtained necessary Licence to run the Cable Network. As a Cable Operator, he down-links the signals from Satellite and retransmits the same through his Cable Network System to different broadcasters. He is entitled to transmit and retransmit broadcas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gulation) Act, 1955. Sub-rule 1(2) thereof gives the scope of the Rules. From a plain reading of the text, the applicability of the said rules has been confined to video libraries and exhibition by means of video. The term "Exhibition by means of Video" has not been defined under the rules, but it has been defined Under Section 2(aa) of the 'Uttar Pradesh Cinemas. (Regulation) Act, 1955, which reads as under: "Exhibition by means of Video" means exhibition in public, on payment for admission, of moving pictures or series of pictures by playing or replaying a prerecorded cassette by means of video cassette player whether on screen of a television set or videoscope or otherwise. 5. The State of Uttarakhand had adopted the said Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms of Rule 17(2), additional fee of Rs. 100/- is leviable for such screen. Videography is generated for being displayed at the premises of the Respondent but is displayed in screens outside the premises of the Respondent. In view of this, the said Rules do not encompass a situation in the present case and the rule imposes a liability to pay a license fee. Construing the Rules strictly, the Respondent cannot be fastened with a liability. Consequently, the Learned Judges of the High Court quashed that part of the order of the learned District Magistrate dated 30th April 2010 whereby a license fee of Rs. 11,88,500 was demanded from the Respondent under Rule 17(2). 8. It is claimed by the Appellants that subsequently, the Respondent without ob....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Cinematograph Act, including the programme code, are fully applicable to the Cable operator. The Respondent got himself registered Under Section 3 by depositing Rs. 500/- as registration fee. The Respondent wants to run two private channels subscribing to 11,885 TV screens. In view of the above, Respondent is covered Under Section 2(aa) of the U.P. Cinema Rules, 1988 and is liable to pay fee under Rule 17. 11. Thus, by conduct the Respondent accepted the Rules, as he submitted an undertaking before the Court to comply with the Rules. He also deposited a license fee of Rs. 2400/- per year as imposed under Rule 17(1). The Respondent cannot choose and be selective as to which Rules will be applicable to him. The Respondent has also given....