JUDGMENT

Aftab Alam, J

1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

2. All these appeals relate to the demand of entertainment tax raised by the Government of Madhya Pradesh under the Madhya Pradesh Entertainment Duty and Advertisements Tax Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1936 Act”) on DTH (direct to home) broadcast provided by the appellants to their respective customers on payment of subscriptions. The appellants in all the appeals challenged the demand by the State Government by filing writ petitions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the demand by the State Government by the judgment and order dated August 20, 2010. That judgment was rendered in a batch of three writ petitions, taking Writ Petition No. 10148 of 2009, filed on behalf of Tata Sky Limited (appellant in the appeal arising from SLP (C) No.2752 of 2011) as the lead case. The rest of the writ petitions were dismissed following the judgment dated August 20, 2010.

3. For the sake of convenience, we too have taken the facts from civil appeal arising out of special leave petition (civil) No.27595 of 2010.

4. The appellant operates under a licence from the Government of India under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Indian Telegraphy Act, 1933. It is, however, the case of the appellant that DTH broadcast is a “service” and it is chargeable to service tax. As a matter of fact, one of the several grounds on which the demand of entertainment tax by the State Government on DTH broadcasting is challenged by the appellant is that DTH broadcasting is one of the notified services under the Finance Act, 1994 and is chargeable to service tax by the Central Government. In that regard, it is stated on behalf of the appellant, that in 1991 the Government of India appointed a Tax Reform Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. Chelliah. The recommendations made by the Tax Reform Committee were accepted and the service tax was introduced in the budget for the year 1994-1995 through the Finance Act, 1994 under the residuary entry 97 of List 1 of the 7^th Schedule of the Constitution of India. Under the Act, service tax is levied on the notified services provided or to be provided.

5. For the purpose of levy of service tax on broadcasting, the expression “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 July 16, 2011. Later on, DTH service was brought within the purview of the service tax with effect from June 16, 2006.

6. Under section 67 of the Finance Act, the value of taxable service is the gross amount charged by the service provider for provision of service.

7. On March 24, 2006, the appellant got a licence from the Government of India under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Indian Telegraphy Act, 1933 to establish, maintain and operate DTH platform for a period of 10 years on the terms and conditions stipulated in the licence agreement. The appellant paid Rs.10 crores as licence fee and furnished a bank guarantee for the sum of Rs.40 crores that is to remain valid for the entire duration of the licence. In terms of the licence the appellant is further required to pay an annual fee equivalent to 10 percent of its gross revenue as reflected in the audited accounts of the company for every financial year within one month from the end of the financial year. The appellant is also required to pay, in addition to licence fee, royalty for spectrum use as prescribed by the Wireless Planning and Coordination Authority (WPC) under the Department of Telecommunications.

8. The licence granted by the Central Government is for the whole of India and the appellant is not obliged to take any permission or any other licence from any other authority for making DTH broadcast.

9. In August 2006, the appellant la