Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.

These two petitions were a part of a batch of 48 petitions which were transferred to this Court by the Supreme Court vide order dated 1^st April, 2016 passed in Transfer Petitions (Civil) Nos. 430-437/2016 and 439-444/2016.

¶16

The challenge in these two petitions is to the Maharashtra Entertainment Duty Act, 1923, as amended by Maharashtra Entertainment Duty (Amendment and Continuance) Act, 2014 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned Act of 2014’).

¶17

W.P.(C) 7189/2016 & W.P.(C) 7191/2016 Page 1 of 6

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 11:38:58

¶20

The background giving rise to these petitions is that the Petitioners, inter alia, carry on business as Multiple Service Operator (hereinafter, ‘MSOs’) and supply cable signals in two ways, firstly, by directly supplying to its customers//end-users/subscribers and secondly, by supplying cable signal from its head-end/control room to various Local Cable Operators (hereinafter, ‘LCOs’) who in turn provide the signal to their customers/endusers/subscribers.

¶21

Under the direct supply system, the Petitioners directly bill and render services to the customers and there are no intermediaries involved. However, under the indirect point system, the LCOs in turn issue bills for subscription charges along with taxes, including Entertainment Duty, to their end customers/subscribers and it is the LCOs that are responsible for the collection of the charges from the end-user/customer/subscriber. It is, therefore, the LCOs who collect the monthly bills along with all taxes from the end-users. The Petitioners, accordingly raise a bilsl/invoices on the LCOs onthe basis of the cable signal provided to the LCO and the LCO in turn issues its invoices to the end customer/user /subscriber.

¶22

It is the case of the Petitioners that it was an established practice in the cable business that an MSO , i.e., the Petitioners in the present case, would invoice their LCOs for either: (i) minimum agreed number; or (ii) number of subscribers declared by the LCO receiving cable television signals of the MSO.

¶23

However, on 17^th December, 2012, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi issued a circular which stated, inter alia , that the existing system of collection of Entertainment Duty by the LCOs would continue only till 31^st March, 2013 and from 1^st April, 2013, the MSOs would

¶24

W.P.(C) 7189/2016 & W.P.(C) 7191/2016 Page 2 of 6

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 11:38:58

¶27

be responsible for the payment of the Entertainment Tax.

¶28

On the basis of the circular issued by the Government of the NCT of Delhi, the State of Maharashtra also issued a Government Resolution stating inter alia, that it was obligatory for the MSOs to make payment of the Entertainment Duty and that the MSOs and LCOs would be jointly and severally liable in respect of any non-payment. 9. Thereafter, Entertainment Duty was imposed by the impugned Act of 2014, similar to the circular issued by the Government of the NCT of Delhi. 10. In so far as the main matter concerning the said challenge by similarly placed MSOs is concerned, the petitions have been disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 9^th March, 2017 in a batch of matters, wherein the lead matter was Writ Petition (Civil) 427/2014 titled Siti Cable Networks Limited v. GNCTD & Ors.

¶29

In the said batch of petitions, i.e. Writ Petition (Civil) 427/2014, Writ Petition (Civil) 475/2014, Writ Petition (Civil) 476/2014, Writ Petition (Civil) 477/2014, Writ Petition (Civil) 3927/2015 and Writ Petition (Civil) 1285/2016, the liability to pay entertainment tax was decided by a ld. Division Bench of this Court in the following manner:-

¶30

“39. For all these reasons, the impugned circular dated 17.12.2012 is quashed. The notice dated 08.01.2014 in the case of WP(C) 427/2014 and similar notices in the case of the other petitions, which are founded on the circular dated 17.12.2012, are also quashed. Insofar as the assessments are concerned, the petitioners would have to take their own remedies against the assessment orders and/or appellate orders in view of the decision arrived at in this case. 40. To be clear, MSOs to the extent that they directly provide cable service to the subscribers without

¶31

W.P.(C) 7189/2016 & W.P.(C) 7191/2016 Page 3 of 6

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 11:38:58

¶34

the intervention of any LCO, would be regarded as the ‘proprietors’ under Section 7(1) and would be liable to collect and pay the entertainment tax to the Government. However, where the MSOs provide the service through the LCOs, the individual LCOs having their own subscriber networks, would be regarded as the proprietors in respect of their individual networks and would be liable to collect the entertainment tax and pay the same to the Government.”

¶35

The said judgment dated 9^th March, 2017 passed by this Court is presently stated to be under challenge in the Supreme Court in SLP No. 003816-003821/2018.

¶36

In addition, Mr. Thakur, ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that in other connected matters, the question raised for consideration of Court was whether when service tax is imposed upon a service, the State would have the power to impose entertainment tax or not.

¶37

He submits that on this issue as well, the Supreme Court's judgment dated 22^nd May, 2025 passed in State of Kerala & Anr. v. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. & Ors. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1225] , has already been rendered, wherein the Supreme Court has held that even when service tax is imposed upon a service by the Central Government, the State would have the power to impose entertainment tax as well.

¶38

The present two petitions were initially filed before the Bombay High Court and vide order dated 1^st October 2015, the Bombay High Court had observed as under:-

¶39

“1. We are informed that bunch of petitions have already been admitted and interim relief has been granted by us on 1^st September, 2015. It appears that this Writ Petition was filed on 31.8.2015 and was not

¶40

W.P.(C) 7189/2016 & W.P.(C) 7191/2016 Page 4 of 6

¶41

This is a digitally signed order.

¶42

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 11:38:58

¶43

circulated alongwith those bunch of petitions. Therefore no coercive steps be taken against the applicants .”

¶44

This interim order passed by the Bombay High Court continues to operate till date.

¶45

However, it appears that since the issues which have been raised now stand decided in other connected matters, and the matter is now pending before the Supreme Court, the present two petitions which were adjourned sine die on 21st September, 2016 have been re-listed before this Court.

¶46

Considering the two judgments which have already been passed, the Petitioners would now have to take a decision as to whether they would like to approach the Bombay High Court or the Supreme Court in these matters. The judgements referred to above would also apply to these petitions. The coordinate Bench has held in the lead matter that the MSOs liability would be to discharge the liability qua entertainment tax qua the services provided by them directly to LCOs. However, insofar as the LCOs who render services to their own customers is concerned, they would themselves be liable to collect the entertainment tax and pay to the Government.

¶47

On the last date of hearing, ld. Counsel for the Petitioners was given an opportunity to take instructions in these matters. 19. Today, Mr. Thakur, ld. Counsel for Petitioners submits that the interim order may be continued for a period of 3 months and in the course of the said duration, the Petitioners would take appropriate steps.

¶48

Accordingly, these two petitions are disposed of with the direction that the interim order dated 1^st October 2015 granted by the Bombay High Court shall continue for a period of 3 months i.e. till 6^th October 2026.

¶49

W.P.(C) 7189/2016 & W.P.(C) 7191/2016 Page 5 of 6

¶50

This is a digitally signed order.

¶51

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 11:38:58

¶52

By the said time, the Petitioners may avail their remedies in accordance with law.

¶53

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶54

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

¶55

JULY 6, 2026/MR/SS

¶56

W.P.(C) 7189/2016 & W.P.(C) 7191/2016 Page 6 of 6

¶57

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/07/2026 at 11:38:58

Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vandana Ashok Dusad & Anr. Vs Consolidation Officer Cum Tehsildar (Kapeshera) & Anr.

Ashok Kumar Dusad & Anr. Vs Consolidation Officer-Cum-Tehsildar (Kapeshera) & Anr.

M/S Global Tabbac Legacy Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Riddhi Education Trust Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Parivar Seva Sanstha & Anr. Vs Dte. of Income Tax & Anr.

M/S Danieli Corus Bv Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax 1(2)(2)

Delhi Development Authority Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Miniflex Cables Manufactures LLP Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pushpal Singh Vs Lig Govt. Servants Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi Urban Cooperative Banks Federation Ltd. Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies and Ors.

Anil Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies & Anr.

Anand Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Bhima Riddhi Digital Services & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Rohit Malhotra Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies & Anr.