9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the present petitions. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the submissions made both with regard to violation of principles of natural justice or even the submissions made before this court referring to the provisions of the Act and the Rules that they are not liable at all as "proprietor". In the result, the present petitions deserve to be rejected and accordingly stand rejected. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated. - Special Civil Application Nos. 13586 TO 13589 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 13-5-2010 - PUJ K.A. AND RAJESH H. SHUKLA, JJ. Rs. 60,48,000 upon which penalty under section 9(3) of the said Act has been imposed as 1% times more than the tax amount, which would come to Rs. 90, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tainment Tax (Telecast through Cable Television and Antenna) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as, the Rules ) and therefore the submission that they are MSO and are not proprietor and not liable to pay the tax cannot be accepted. In view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the petition deserves to be entertained or not. The chequered history would reveal that earlier petitions have been filed before this court and an opportunity has been granted to the petitioners which has been pointed out. As can be seen from the record also, even when the application for registration was made pursuant to the order passed by this court in earlier litigation, it was not accompanied by necessary details. The details we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh the submission has been made, there is nothing to indicate as to how to carve out any such exception or on what basis such exception has been made. The definition of proprietor is provided in section 2(j) of the Act, which defines proprietor as follows: (j) 'proprietor' in relation to any entertainment, includes the owner thereof, and any person (i) responsible for, or for the time being in charge of, the management thereof, or (ii) connected in whatsoever manner with theorization of the entertainment for any duration, or (iii) charged or entrusted or authorised with the work of admission to the entertainment, or (iv) responsible for, or for the time being in charge of, management of providing of maintaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired to be supplied relating to the payment of tax as a proprietor referred to in section 6B along with necessary forms and details. Therefore, the submission made by learned advocate Mr. Sanjanwala referring to the definition of proprietor that the petitioners cannot be termed as a proprietor is misconceived. It is not in dispute that petitioner No. 1-company is working as MSO receiving the signal and then transmit it to the LCO. Therefore, even if it is considered with reference to the definition of section 2(cc) cable television , it also provides that a system organised on payment by a connection holder of any contribution or subscription or installation charges or connection charges or any other charges collected in any manner w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r registration, the details are not mentioned and after they were called upon to submit the details, ultimately, the registration is granted. The conduct of the petitioners is also required to be considered that having once obtained the registration certificate, they tried to join an issue with regard to the number of connections or the subscribers. No payment has been made, though, admittedly, they have been receiving the amount from the LCO. Thus, on the one hand, the petitioners have been getting the amount from the LCO, do not want to pay the tax and on the other hand they have deliberately tried to suppress the facts and details with regard to the number of connections or subscribers. It is required to be mentioned that the liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t meeting between the cable operator and the consumer through a technical link has been made possible. Though the rules may be different, but the basic idea with regard to the method of functioning for providing entertainment through cable network would remain the same, and it is the same system of MSO and LCO and it is in that context the observations have been made making MSO like the petitioners also liable, rejecting the very same submissions and contentions raised in the present petitions. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the submissions made both with regard to violation of principles of natural justice or even the submissions made before this court referring to the provisions of the Act and the Rules that they are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
