9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4th quarter of the Assessment Year 2015-16 (01.01.2016 to 31.03.2016), the Assessment Year 2016-17 (all four quarters) and the 1st quarter of the Assessment Year 2017-18 (01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017). The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and also registered with the Registrar of Companies, New Delhi. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing entertainment through cables and the procedure which it follows is detailed at paragraph 4 of the writ petition which runs under: "A. The television channels uplink their encrypted content to a satellite. B. These encrypted signals of various television channels are then downloaded by entities like the petitioner, who are known as Multi System Operators (MSOs). C. The MSOs decrypt the content of various channels, and after converting them for transmission at a different frequency, re-encrypt them for transmission through cables to Local Cable Operators. D. The cable network of the MSOs transmits the signals to the Local Cable Operators (LCOs). E. For the purpose of transmitting the signal to the subscriber, the LCOs use their own cable network, which is wholly and solely owned by them. F. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h relates to the period in question, a recovery by attachment of Bank Account has been made to the tune of more than Rs.12.82 crores. Dr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has chosen not to press the relief prayed at paragraph 1(a) to the writ petition to the extent it questions the vires of Section 3AA of 'the Act' and submits that the petitioner would be pressing the other reliefs so prayed in the writ petition which questions the assessment orders for the period 2015-16 (4th quarter), 2016-17 (all quarters) and 2017-18 (1st quarter) not only on merits but also on the exercise of jurisdiction for according to Dr. Singh, the petitioner is not exigible to tax in so far as it is providing entertainment indirectly through Local Cable Operators to the subscribers. Learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of SITI Cable Networks Limited vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others arising from W.P.(C) 427 of 2014 and C.M. No.851 of 2014 which was heard analogous with other writ petitions to submit that it is raising identical issues that the 'MSO' in Delhi had approached the Delhi High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce been framed vide rules 19A and 23A of 'the Rules'. Perhaps Dr. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has been wisely instructed not to press the relief questioning the vires of the provisions because even though the language of Section 3AA of 'the Act' is not very happily worded but the import is loud and clear and there is no confusion about the nature of impost. Perhaps the confusion as regarding the identity of the 'proprietor' has led to the challenge because while according to Dr. Singh, it would be 'MSO' when it provides entertainment to the subscriber through the cables directly and not when such 'MSO' would be providing entertainment through the Local Cable Operators to the subscriber, in which situation, it would be the Local Cable Operators, the position is contested by Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned State Counsel to canvass that in either of the situation it would be 'MSO' who would be treated to be the proprietor for the purpose of levy. We would reserve our opinion for the present and leave it open for the parties contesting to advance these arguments before the authority concerned because in the nature of the order passed by the Assessing Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the number of set top boxes, the details of which was available in the register of the petitioner. This fact situation that the assessment orders are based on set top boxes and are not relatable to the subscribers as mandated under section 3AA of 'the Act' read alongside the 'Rules' framed thereunder, is not in contest rather is an admitted position. As we have noted above, the taxing event happens when such connection reaches the 'subscriber' who is defined under section 2(q) of 'the Act' and means a person who receives the signal of cable television network at a place indicated by him to the cable operator without further transmitting it to any other person. The definition of a 'subscriber' is self eloquent and literally means the 'consumer' i.e. the end user of the connection because he does not further transmit the signal to any other person. The definition of a 'subscriber' as found in section 2(q) of 'the Act' is thus identifiable by a person and not by a 'set top box' as has been done in the present case by the Assessing Authority, to pass the orders put to challenge. In our opinion the assessment orders having been passed on the basis of the details of the set top ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
