tech_genie
Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2012
- Messages
- 879
- Reaction score
- 697
DTH free from entertainment tax
The Supreme Court last week held that the Madhya Pradesh government cannot demand entertainment tax on DTH services provided to customers of Tata Sky under the state Entertainment Duty and Advertisements Tax Act. The revenue department had demanded 20 per cent entertainment duty on subscription payment from the telecasters. They had moved the high court, but it had dismissed all of them, upholding the demand of the revenue authorities. Allowing the appeal of the company in the case, Tata Sky vs State of MP, the judgment stated that the Act cannot be extended to cover DTH operations. The state law imposes duty only if an entertainment takes place in a specified place or location and persons are admitted there on payment of a charge to the proprietor providing the entertainment. In the case of DTH, the operation is not a place-related entertainment. Therefore, the law is not applicable to DTH.
RTI query on CESTAT dismissed
The Supreme Court last week dismissed an appeal seeking inspection of documents relating to the annual confidential report of a judicial member of the CESTAT allegedly containing adverse entries and the "follow up action" taken on the question of integrity of the member, Ms Jyoti Balasunaram. The Delhi High Court, and earlier the information commissioner, had dismissed the plea as the information is personal and no larger public interest is involved. In this case, R K Jain vs Union of India, the petition under the Right to Information Act was rejected by the finance ministry as the information sought was personal information of a third party. This view was upheld in all the appeals.
Company petition maintainable
The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the long-standing dispute between Bhagwati Developers and Peerless General Finance Ltd over a complaint of oppression and mismanagement. Since the dispute started in 1991, the matter was remanded to the high court to decide it within six months. The high court had rejected the claim of Bhagwati Developers to maintain the company petition because it had less than the required shares to move the company court. The Supreme Court stated that a winding up petition can be filed with 10 per cent shareholding in all. It is not necessary that the petitioner must hold it individually. A petition can be filed even after obtaining the consent of other shareholders, the Supreme Court ruled. It said that the law does not require that "the consent should be given by a member personally, as the same can also be given by the power of attorney holder of such a shareholder. Furthermore, the issue of consent must be decided on the basis of a broad consensus approach, in relation to the avoidance and subsistence of the case. The same must be decided on the basis of the form of such consent, rather on the substance of the same. There is hence, no need of written consent, or even of the consent being annexed with the company petition."
BPCL order held illegal
The dealership of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) cannot be terminated without strictly following the procedure laid down in the Petroleum Act, the Supreme Court has stated while dismissing the appeal of the company in the judgment, BPCL vs M/s Jagnnath & Co. The dealership of the partnership firm, which was operating for 37 years without complaint, was cancelled because some samples taken of the petroleum products in stock did not meet the required specifications. The dealership was awarded to another firm. The old firm challenged the action as against natural justice and against the guidelines. It stated that product samples should be taken again and re-tested by an independent agency in the presence of its officers. When there was no response, the firm moved the Allahabad High Court. It alleged mala fides on the part of an officer. Its writ petition was allowed by the Allahabad high court and the court asked the corporation to restore the dealership to the original firm. BPCL appealed to the Supreme Court but the high court order was upheld.
Minister rapped for land deal
The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Karnataka high court and remarked that the order of de-notification of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the then minister was illegal. The land was notified in 1971, but after a visit of the minister to the land in question, it was de-notified, even against the report of a three-member committee. The judgment in the case, State of Karnataka vs Vijaya Leasing Ltd stated: "We wonder why the minister concerned should have taken upon himself the extraordinary effort of making an inspection for which no special reasons were given... The minister committed gross illegality by directing the issuance of de-notification in 1999 despite the fact that possession had already been handed over to the state in 1983."
Source: DTH free from entertainment tax | Business Standard
The Supreme Court last week held that the Madhya Pradesh government cannot demand entertainment tax on DTH services provided to customers of Tata Sky under the state Entertainment Duty and Advertisements Tax Act. The revenue department had demanded 20 per cent entertainment duty on subscription payment from the telecasters. They had moved the high court, but it had dismissed all of them, upholding the demand of the revenue authorities. Allowing the appeal of the company in the case, Tata Sky vs State of MP, the judgment stated that the Act cannot be extended to cover DTH operations. The state law imposes duty only if an entertainment takes place in a specified place or location and persons are admitted there on payment of a charge to the proprietor providing the entertainment. In the case of DTH, the operation is not a place-related entertainment. Therefore, the law is not applicable to DTH.
RTI query on CESTAT dismissed
The Supreme Court last week dismissed an appeal seeking inspection of documents relating to the annual confidential report of a judicial member of the CESTAT allegedly containing adverse entries and the "follow up action" taken on the question of integrity of the member, Ms Jyoti Balasunaram. The Delhi High Court, and earlier the information commissioner, had dismissed the plea as the information is personal and no larger public interest is involved. In this case, R K Jain vs Union of India, the petition under the Right to Information Act was rejected by the finance ministry as the information sought was personal information of a third party. This view was upheld in all the appeals.
Company petition maintainable
The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the long-standing dispute between Bhagwati Developers and Peerless General Finance Ltd over a complaint of oppression and mismanagement. Since the dispute started in 1991, the matter was remanded to the high court to decide it within six months. The high court had rejected the claim of Bhagwati Developers to maintain the company petition because it had less than the required shares to move the company court. The Supreme Court stated that a winding up petition can be filed with 10 per cent shareholding in all. It is not necessary that the petitioner must hold it individually. A petition can be filed even after obtaining the consent of other shareholders, the Supreme Court ruled. It said that the law does not require that "the consent should be given by a member personally, as the same can also be given by the power of attorney holder of such a shareholder. Furthermore, the issue of consent must be decided on the basis of a broad consensus approach, in relation to the avoidance and subsistence of the case. The same must be decided on the basis of the form of such consent, rather on the substance of the same. There is hence, no need of written consent, or even of the consent being annexed with the company petition."
BPCL order held illegal
The dealership of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) cannot be terminated without strictly following the procedure laid down in the Petroleum Act, the Supreme Court has stated while dismissing the appeal of the company in the judgment, BPCL vs M/s Jagnnath & Co. The dealership of the partnership firm, which was operating for 37 years without complaint, was cancelled because some samples taken of the petroleum products in stock did not meet the required specifications. The dealership was awarded to another firm. The old firm challenged the action as against natural justice and against the guidelines. It stated that product samples should be taken again and re-tested by an independent agency in the presence of its officers. When there was no response, the firm moved the Allahabad High Court. It alleged mala fides on the part of an officer. Its writ petition was allowed by the Allahabad high court and the court asked the corporation to restore the dealership to the original firm. BPCL appealed to the Supreme Court but the high court order was upheld.
Minister rapped for land deal
The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Karnataka high court and remarked that the order of de-notification of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the then minister was illegal. The land was notified in 1971, but after a visit of the minister to the land in question, it was de-notified, even against the report of a three-member committee. The judgment in the case, State of Karnataka vs Vijaya Leasing Ltd stated: "We wonder why the minister concerned should have taken upon himself the extraordinary effort of making an inspection for which no special reasons were given... The minister committed gross illegality by directing the issuance of de-notification in 1999 despite the fact that possession had already been handed over to the state in 1983."
Source: DTH free from entertainment tax | Business Standard
