Broadcasters have to pay both service, luxury taxes: Supreme Court
'In the same way, the Finance Act along with its amendments seeks to impose a tax on the service rendered by the broadcasting agency which is imposed under Entry 97 List – I. In the same vein, under Entry 62 List – II, the state governments are not imposing any service tax on the assesses,' the top court said.
It further stated that there is no overlapping in fact or in law, inasmuch as different aspects of the same activity are being taxed under two different legislations by two different legislatures.
'This is because the activity of broadcasting is a service and liable to service tax imposed by the Parliament (Entry 97 – List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution) and the activity of entertainment is a subject falling under Entry 62 - List II and therefore, the assessees herein are liable to pay entertainment tax as well. Hence, the State Legislatures as well as the Parliament, both have the legislative competence to levy entertainment tax as well as service tax respectively on the activity carried out by the assessees herein,' the judgment stated.
According to it, no entertainment can be presented to the viewers unless the broadcaster transmits the signals for instantaneous presentation of any performance, film or any programme on their television.
'Thus, there are two aspects in this activity; the first is the act of transmission of signals of the content to the subscribers. The second aspect here concerns not only the content of the signals, but the effect of the decryption of the signals by the Set-Top Boxes and the viewing cards inside these boxes provided by the assessees to the subscribers, which is providing and receiving of entertainment through the television. Without the apparatus provided for by the assessees to decrypt the signals, the subscriber would not be able to watch the content that is transmitted, the content being for the purpose of entertainment,' Justice Nagarathna, writing for the bench, said in her 321-page judgment.
The television entertainment provided by them through broadcasting, is a luxury within the meaning of Entry 62 - List II. The assessees who are engaged in the activity of providing entertainment are liable to pay service tax on the activity of broadcasting under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 read with relevant amendments and are also liable to pay entertainment tax in terms of Entry 62 - List II as being a specie of luxuries, the court added.
The apex court was hearing a batch of cases from different high courts (lead case being Kerala vs Asianet Satellite Communications) in which entertainment tax was charged from broadcasters by various states. The broadcasters claimed that they were not liable to pay entertainment tax (or
luxury tax
) under the respective state enactments. They submitted that since they were engaged in broadcasting of signals through television channels to subscribers, hence, were possibly liable to pay only service tax to the Central government.
It set aside the Kerala High Court's 2012 judgment that had held that exemption given to cable operators from luxury tax while making DTH operators to pay the same is a case of discriminatory levy of luxury tax merely because of technological differences in the system of delivery of entertainment in both the services.
The top court said that the 2012 judgment, which declared the levy and collection of luxury tax on cable television operators with connections of 7,500 or more as unconstitutional for being discriminatory was "incorrect".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
7 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Mahua Moitra fainted during Opposition march, claims Derek O'Brien
A protest march by INDIA bloc MPs to the Election Commission's office in the capital on Monday saw high drama, with Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra fainting midway and being attended to by party colleagues. TMC MP Mahua Moitra and other opposition MPs hold a protest against Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar at Parliament premises during the monsoon session, in New Delhi.(ANI) The Opposition MPs, led by Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, began their march from Parliament's Makar Dwar to Nirvachan Sadan, accusing the poll body of ignoring 'voter theft' during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and raising slogans of 'vote chor.' The demonstration also targeted the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, which leaders alleged was being used to manipulate the voter list. Delhi Police stopped the MPs, saying no permission had been sought for the protest. Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi countered that such permission was 'never' granted, accusing the police of acting on government directions. Samajwadi Party's Dimple Yadav alleged booth capturing in recent Uttar Pradesh bypolls, while RJD's Manoj Jha called the SIR a 'fraud' and accused the EC of withholding data despite Supreme Court orders. Congress MP Pramod Tiwari likened the march to Mahatma Gandhi's Dandi March, saying it was aimed at 'saving democracy.' Despite police barricades, Opposition leaders vowed to press ahead with their demand for electoral accountability.
Hindustan Times
7 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC upholds conviction of Medha Patkar in defamation case, waives penalty of ₹1 lakh
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the conviction of social activist Medha Patkar in a defamation case filed by Delhi lieutenant governor (L-G) VK Saxena but waived the penalty of ₹1 lakh imposed on her. The sessions court in April this year, upheld the conviction but set aside the jail term and released Patkar on probation. (File photo) A bench of justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh passed the order in relation to an appeal filed by Patkar challenging the July 29 order of the Delhi high court upholding her conviction. 'We are not inclined to interfere with the conviction. However, the penalty imposed on the appellant stands set aside,' the bench said. The Delhi high court upheld the trial court's order convicting and sentencing Patkar in a 2001 criminal defamation case filed by L-G Saxena, concluding that her statements were defamatory and tarnished Saxena's image. The defamation case was filed by Saxena at the time when he was heading the non profit National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL)-- which actively supported the Sardar Sarovar Dam Project in Gujarat. Also Read: Delhi HC upholds conviction of Medha Patkar in criminal defamation case It stemmed from the press release issued by Patkar, who led the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) that mobilised protests against the construction of the dam. The release titled 'True Face of Patriot', alleged that Saxena had donated a cheque to NBA, which later bounced and implied that he covertly aided the movement, which he publicly opposed. In May last year, metropolitan magistrate Raghav Sharma found Patkar guilty, sentenced her to five months imprisonment and imposed ₹10 lakh fine. The sessions court in April this year, upheld the conviction but set aside the jail term and released Patkar on probation. The HC upheld the sessions court order, observing that the same was passed after due consideration of evidence and law. The order of July 29 said, 'The record suggests that the essential ingredients of Section 499 (criminal defamation) of the IPC are clearly made out. The imputations made were specific, published in the public domain and caused harm to the reputation of the respondent. The order under challenge appears to have been passed after due consideration of the evidence on record and the applicable law.' Senior advocate Sanjay Parikh appearing for Patkar said that the HC disbelieved the statement of witnesses produced in favour of Patkar's defence. Patkar asserted she had no connection either with and did not have knowledge about the press note. Parikh further submitted that the release could have been typed by anyone and mere addition of the name at the end of the note, could not be considered as a proof that the release was issued or caused to be published by her. Saxena was represented in the top court by senior advocate Maninder Singh. The L-G maintained that Patkar was actively involved in the issuance of the press release. He further submitted that even though the 70-year old activist was not a convenor of the web portal on which the press release was uploaded, she was directly correlated to it since the portal contained NBA's office address, which is same as Patkar's address. The high court had modified the condition of probation requiring her to physically appear before the trial court every three months. The high court said that she could either appear online or through her lawyer. The top court held that the supervision order in this regard will not be given effect to.
Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- Indian Express
SC confirms Medha Patkar's conviction in defamation case by Delhi LG Saxena
The Supreme Court on Monday confirmed the conviction of activist Medha Patkar in a 25-year-old defamation case filed by Delhi LG V K Saxena. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said it was not inclined to interfere with the Delhi high court order on the matter that released Patkar on 'probation of good conduct' but required her to appear before the trial court once every three years. It added, 'However, taking into consideration the submission of the counsel for the petitioner the penalty imposed stands set aside and we further clarify that the supervision order will not be given effect.' The high court on July 29 upheld the conviction and punishment awarded to 70-year-old Patkar. Saxena filed the case 25 years ago when he was heading an NGO in Gujarat. The high court had said there was illegality or material irregularity in the findings of the trial court and added that the order of conviction was passed after due consideration of evidence and the applicable law. It had said that Patkar failed to demonstrate any defects in the procedure which was followed or any error in the law which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. The high court also upheld the order on sentence, where Patkar was released on 'probation of good conduct', and said it did not require any interference. Probation is a method of non-institutional treatment of offenders and a conditional suspension of sentence in which the offender, after conviction, is released on bond of good behaviour instead of being sent to prison. The high court, however, had modified the condition of probation imposed by the trial court, requiring Patkar to appear before the trial court once in every three months, and allowed her to either appear physically or through videoconferencing or be represented through the lawyer during the appearances. The Narmada Bachao Andolan leader challenged the April 2 sessions court order upholding her conviction handed out by a magisterial court in the case. The sessions court, which upheld Patkar's conviction in the case, released her on 'probation of good conduct' on furnishing a probation bond of Rs 25,000 on April 8 and imposed a precondition on her of depositing Rs 1 lakh as fine. The magisterial court on July 1, 2024 sentenced Patkar to five months of simple imprisonment and slapped a Rs 10 lakh fine after finding her guilty under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC. Saxena filed the case as president of the National Council of Civil Liberties against Patkar for her defamatory press release against Saxena issued on November 24, 2000. On May 24, 2024, the magisterial court held that that Patkar's statements were not only per se defamatory but also 'crafted to incite negative perceptions' about him. The accusation that the complainant was 'mortgaging' the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests was a direct attack on his integrity and public service, it had said. On April 2, the sessions court had dismissed a challenge to the order and held Patkar was 'rightly convicted' and there was 'no substance' in the appeal against the verdict of her conviction in the defamation case.
