9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its officers (being Special Appeal Nos. 21, 25 and 26 of 2009) and the other set filed by the Service Providers (being Special Appeal Nos. 23, 30 and 31 of 2009), are against the judgment dated 26.11.2008 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of writ petitions relating to some issues concerning the levy and imposition of entertainment tax qua the writ petitioners Service Providers under the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (1979 Act for short). 2. The writ petitioners are Direct to Home (DTH) service providers. Their case before the learned Single Judge was that the nature of service being offered by them was different to the service offered by cable operators because the DTH service providers provide serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e we ourselves are of the view, after going through all the provisions of 1979 Act as it stood at the time the impugned judgment was delivered, that this Act did not contain any provision which authorized or permitted the imposition or levy of entertainment tax qua DTH service providers. Whether, we are fortified in this view of ours or not, but a subsequent development is important and relevant to be taken note of. The Uttarakhand State Legislature has, after the pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment, by notification no. 131/XXXVI (3)/2009/11(1)/2009 dated 16.03.2009 enacted the Uttarakhand (The Uttar Pradesh Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979) (Amendment), Act 2009 (Act No. 4 of 2009). By virtue of this 2009 Amendment Act, a new c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered opinion the issue raised in the Special Appeals filed by the writ petitioners challenging the aforesaid part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge is only of an academic importance and nature because, the said issue actually should not have arisen for consideration in the light of the finding on the first issue. The Special Appeals filed by the writ petitioners accordingly are held non-maintainable. 7. Both sets of appeals are dismissed in limine. 8. At this stage Mr. K.N. Tripathi, learned Sr. Advocate, appearing for the appellants in the second set of appeals submits that a new cause of action has accrued to the writ petitioners by the coming into force of 2009 Amendment Act, amending some provisions of 1979 Act. We t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
