STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER versus ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & OTHERS

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2215 · Decided: 22-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 42 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2215 : 2025 INSC 757
State of Kerala & Another 
v. 
Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. & Others
(Civil Appeal No. 9301 of 2013)
22 May 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The questions for consideration were: 1) Whether appellants-
assessees, engaged in broadcasting of signals etc. through 
television channels to subscribers of those channels, were liable 
to pay entertainment tax under provisions of respective State 
enactments relatable to Entry 62 – List II of the Seventh Schedule of 
the Constitution and also liable to pay service tax under provisions of 
the Finance Act, 1994 as amended from time to time as a provider 
of a taxable service namely broadcasting service within the scope 
and ambit of Entry 97–List I; and 2) Whether decision of Supreme 
Court in Purvi Communication had failed to consider the tests laid 
down in Geeta Enterprises and to that extent was per incuriam.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Seventh Schedule – List I, Entry 97 and 
List II, Entry 62 – Different aspects of same activity – Taxation 
under two different legislations by two different legislatures – 
Assessees, engaged in broadcasting of signals etc. through 
television channels to subscribers of those channels – If liable 
to pay entertainment tax under provisions of respective State 
enactments relatable to Entry 62 of List II and also liable to 
pay service tax as a provider of a taxable service namely 
broadcasting service within the scope and ambit of Entry 97 
of List I:
Held: There are two aspects in the activity undertaken by the 
assessees – The first is the act of transmission of signals of the 
content to the subscribers – The second aspect here concerns 
not only the content of the signals, but the effect of the decryption 
of the signals by the Set-Top Boxes and the viewing cards inside 
these boxes provided by the assessees to the subscribers, which 
* Author
2216
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
is providing and receiving of entertainment through the television – 
Without the apparatus provided for by the assessees to decrypt the 
signals, the subscriber would not be able to watch the content that 
is transmitted, the content being for the purpose of entertainment – 
The television entertainment provided by them through their modus 
operandi i.e., by broadcasting, is a luxury within the meaning 
of Entry 62 of List II – The assessees who are engaged in the 
activity of providing entertainment are liable to pay service tax on 
the activity of broadcasting under the provisions of the Finance 
Act, 1994 read with relevant amendments and are also liable to 
pay entertainment tax in terms of Entry 62 of List II as being a 
specie of luxuries – Therefore, both the taxes, one by the State 
Legislature and the other, by the Parliament are leviable on the 
activity of the assessees – This is because by rendering the service 
of broadcasting, the assessees are entertaining the subscribers 
within the meaning of Entry 62 of List II –There is no overlapping 
in fact or in law, inasmuch as different aspects of the same activity 
are being taxed under two different legislations by two different 
legislatures – This is because the activity of broadcasting is a service 
and liable to service tax imposed by the Parliament (Entry 97 of 
List I) and the activity of entertainment is a subject falling under 
Entry 62 of List II and therefore, the assessees herein are liable 
to pay entertainment tax as well – Hence, the State Legislatures 
as well as the Parliament, both have the legislative competence 
to levy entertainment tax as well as service tax respectively on the 
activity carried out by the assessees herein. [Para 17.37]
Doctrines – Aspect theory – Double aspect doctrine – A tool of 
constitutional interpretation used in Canada to resolve issues 
which arise when both the federal and provincial government 
have the right to legislate on a subject – Usage of aspect 
theory in the Indian context – Discussed:
Held: In India, there appears to be no clarity on the application of 
the aspect theory in the Canadian sense – One of the reasons being 
that in India, both the Parliament as well as the State Legislature 
do not have powers to levy tax on the same subject – The aspect 
theory has been applied in India essentially to ascertain whether an 
activity would fall within the scope and ambit of an enactment and 
whether the said enactment in pith and substan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.