IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ::

HYDERABAD * * *

WRIT PETITION No.25339 of 2008 Between:

Tata Sky Limited.

Petitioners VERSUS State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others.

Respondents ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 20.02.2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes _______________ P.SAM KOSHY, J * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO + W.P.No.25339 of 2008 % 20.02.2026 # Between:

Tata Sky Limited.

Petitioners VERSUS State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others.

Respondents ! Counsel for petitioner : Mr. Sivaraju Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Panasia Advocates and Consultants.

^Counsel for respondents : Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax.

GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1) 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1225

2) (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 656

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.25339 of 2008 DATE: 20.02.2026 Between :

Tata Sky Limited.

…Petitioner AND State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. Sivaraju Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing

M/s. Panasia Advocates and Consultants for the petitioner; and

Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax

on behalf of the respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court to grant the following relief/s, viz., “………to issue a writ, order or direction; more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the orders passed by the 4th Respondent in Proc No. APET/33/2007-08 dated 27-08-2008, assessing the liability of the company for the five successive quarters commencing from August 2006 to July 2007 vide individual orders for respective quarters of (i) August 2006 to Sep 2006. Rs. 18,490/- (ii) Oct 2006 to Dec 2006. Rs. 2,23,290/- (iii) Jan 2007 to Mar 2007. Rs. 4,32,560/- (iv) Apr 2007 to June 2007. Rs. 6,21,450/-

(v) July 2007. Rs. 2,43,690/-

and the consequent Notices of Assessment and Demand in Assessment No. APET/33/07-08 (APET) dated 23-10-2008 for the said periods and amounts and consequently, set aside the same and pass such order or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Before examining the facts of the present case, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala and Another vs. Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1225 while disposing of related writ petitions concerning DTH services and the master cable operator in such matters, specifically refrained from expressing any opinion on the validity and applicability of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 (as adopted by the State of Telangana) observing that the question of whether this Act is valid and applicable to DTH services remains pending before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, and therefore all arguments concerning the tax assessment orders under this State legislation have been left open for determination by the appropriate judicial forum. For ready reference, paragraph No.17.2 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder, viz., “17.2………Insofar as the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 (as adopted by State of Telangana) is concerned, we do not express any opinio