ITV

Tag: Aftab Alam

  • TDSAT directs Media Pro to restore signals to Lucknow MSO

    TDSAT directs Media Pro to restore signals to Lucknow MSO

    NEW DELHI: In an order that may help multi-system operators whose applications for DAS licence are pending with the government, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) has directed Media Pro Enterprises to restore television signals to Lucknow-9 Cable Network of Lucknow as an interim measure.

    The Lucknow-based operator had said that its application for licence under Digital Access System (DAS) has been pending before the Information and Broadcasting Ministry for several months.

    Chairperson Justice Aftab Alam and member Kuldeep Singh also directed the Lucknow network to file an affidavit to the effect that its application filed in the Ministry for grant of license under Rule 11 C of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 was not defective but was complete and in order, in all respects. It would also file a copy of the application in a sealed cover.

    Meanwhile, the Lucknow-based operator would pay to content aggregator Media Pro all dues following a reconciliation of accounts and further to file an undertaking before this Tribunal that it would transmit or retransmit programmes of any channels following the provisions of section 4 A of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. This undertaking has already been filed.

    Media Pro counsel Tejveer Singh Bhatia had told the Tribunal that his client could not supply the signals as it was prohibited from doing so under clause 3(2) of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Television Systems) Regulations, 2012 ‘for the simple reason that the Petitioner did not have a license under Regulation 11 C of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.’

    But Counsel for the operator Vikram Singh said as there was inordinate delay in the grant of license, the operator had approached the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court which had disposed off the Petition by order dated 2 June 2013 directing the concerned authority to rid the application for license within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of that order. Counsel also stated that the date stipulated in the High Court’s order has expired on 2 July 2013 but it has so far not received any communication in regard to its application for the license.

  • Supreme court gives entertainment tax relief to DTH operators

    Supreme court gives entertainment tax relief to DTH operators

    NEW DELHI: In a major relief to direct-to-home operators in the state, the Supreme Court last week held that the Madhya Pradesh government cannot demand entertainment tax on DTH services under the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936.

    Justice Aftab Alam and Justice R M Lodha said in a judgment that Act ‘cannot be extended to cover DTH operations.’

    Accepting appeals by Tata Sky against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court of August 2010, the apex court said: ‘Neither the provision of section 4(1) nor any of the modes provided under section 4(2) of the Act can be made applicable for collection of duty on DTH operations. Further, it is noted above that section 8 provides rule making powers. In exercise of the powers under that provision, the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty and Advertisement Tax Rules 1942 were framed. A perusal of the Rules makes it absolutely clear that the collection mechanism under the 1936 Act is based on revenue stamps stuck to the tickets issued by the proprietor for entry to the specified place where entertainment is held.’

    The Court added: ‘Under section 3 read with section 2(d) and section 2(a), the charge or levy of tax is attracted only if an entertainment takes place in a specified place or locations and persons are admitted to the place on payment of a charge to the proprietor providing the entertainment. In the present case, as DTH operation is not a place-related entertainment, it is not covered by the charging section 3 read with section 2(a) and 2(b) of the 1936 Act. Consequently, the question of going to section 2(d)(iv) does not arise.’

    The revenue department had demanded 20 per cent entertainment duty on subscription payment from the DTH operator, which had commenced services in August 2006 all over the country including Madhya Pradesh.

    Tata Sky in their appeals had contended that DTH broadcast is a notified service under the Finance Act and it is chargeable to service tax. For the purpose of levy of service tax, “broadcasting” has been defined specifically under section 65(15) of the Finance Act. The broadcasting services were brought within the purview of the service tax under section 65(105)(zk) of the Finance Act 1994 as amended with effect from 16 July 2001. Later on, DTH service was brought within the purview of the service tax with effect from 16 June 2006.

    Tata Sky contended that it does not use any infrastructure from the State for its DTH broadcasts.

    On 5 May 2008, the State Government issued a gazette notification fixing 20 per cent entertainment duty in respect of every payment made for admission to an entertainment other than cinemas, videos cassette recorders and cable service.

    The State on 1 August 2009 passed the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty and Advertisements Tax (Amendment) Act, 2009. By the Amendment Act, the failure to produce accounts and documents as required by the Excise Commissioner or any officer authorized by the State Government was made a penal offence.

    However, the apex court noted that this amendment ‘did not introduce any provision in the Parent Act with respect to levy of entertainment duty on DTH broadcasting.’

    Referring to the notification of 5 May 2008, the apex court said ‘it is elementary that a notification issued in exercise of powers under the Act cannot amend the Act. Moreover, the notification merely prescribes the rate of entertainment duty at 20 per cent in respect of every payment for admission to an entertainment other than cinema, video cassette recorder and cable service. The notification cannot enlarge either the charging section or amend the provision of collection under section 4 of the Act read with the 1942 Rules. It is therefore clear that the notification in no way improves the case of the State.’

    The Court also said that the controversy in all the three appeals relates to the demand and realization of entertainment tax under the 1936 Act, which means for the period between the commencement of operation by the appellant in the year 2006 and 31 March 2011, the day prior to the coming into force of the new Act, called the Madhya Pradesh Vilasita, Manoranjan, Amod Evam Vigyapan Kar Adiniyam 2011.

  • Supreme Court gives clean chit to sting ops in public interest

    Supreme Court gives clean chit to sting ops in public interest

    MUMBAI: For news channels conducting sting operations, this is a piece of good news. Rejecting a plea for putting curbs on the media and television channels from conducting sting operations, the Supreme Court has given a clean chit to NDTV while upholding the conviction of lawyer RK Anand.

    NDTV had carried out a sting operation in the BMW hit-and-run case that exposed collusion between the prosecution and defence counsel.

    A Bench comprising Justices BN Agrawal, GS Singhvi and Aftab Alam said, “It is not our intent here to lay down any reformist agenda for the media. The norms to regulate the media and to raise its professional standards must come from inside.”

    Rejecting suggestions that channels should carry out sting operations only after getting prior permission from the court, the Bench said,”Such a course would not be an exercise in journalism but in that case the media would be acting as some sort of special vigilance agency for the court. On a little consideration, the idea appears to be quite repugnant both from the points of view of the court and the media. It would be a sad day for the court to employ the media for setting its own house in order; and media too would certainly not relish the role of being the snoopers for the court.”

    A plea that the telecast should be permissible only after submitting the sting material to the court was also rejected. Pre-screening of the material would amount to pre-censorship, the court said.

    The apex court also held that the sting operation was not a media trial but in the larger public interest.