Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2598

No service tax is leviable on amount paid to print media for publishing advertisement.
Case:-R.J. AGENCIES VERSUSCOMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI

Citation:-  2014 (35) S.T.R. 794 (Tri.-Chennai)

Brief facts:–
The applicant has also filed applications for waiver of pre-deposit of dues arising from Order-in-Appeal No. 80/2009 (MST), dated 21-12-2009. The applicant submits that they were engaged in the business of canvassing advertisement for newspapers orperiodicals and they were getting commission from such advertisement agencies and they have been paying service tax for such commission under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’. During the period in question i.e. April, 05 to March, 07, they have paid Service Tax amount of Rs. 58,589/- and Educational Cess of Rs. 1172/- on such commission. However, they had not paid any Service Tax on the amount which they received from their clients and remitted by them to the concerned print media for publishing advertisement. Revenue was of the view that Service Tax should have been paid on such monies handled by the applicant under the category of “Advertising Agency Service” because they had taken service tax registration as “Advertising Agency”. Based on such argument, a show cause notice was issued and adjudicated confirming a demand of Rs. 3,38,634/- along with appropriate interest and penalty.

Appellants contention:-Ld. Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant had no print media and they only canvassed business for print media and they have to necessarily pay to the print media for carrying advertisement and such amounts paid to the print media cannot be considered as consideration for services rendered by the applicant. Further, she relies on the clarification issued by C.B.E. & C. on 23-8-2007 with code No. 004.01 clarifying that persons/agencies canvassing advertisements on commission basis will not be considered as ‘advertisement agencies’ taxable under Section 65(105)(e) of Finance Act, 1994 but they are liable to pay service under the category of “Business of Auxiliary Service” under Section 65(105)(zzb). It is her contention that under “Business Auxiliary Service”,only commission can be taxed and not the amount paid to the print media. Therefore, she prays that her appeal may be admitted without any pre-deposit.
 
Respondents contention:-Opposing the prayer, ld. AR for Revenue submits that applicants are registered as “Advertising Agency”. Therefore, service tax should be paid under the category of “Advertising Agency Service”. He further submits that there was no evidence before the lower authority to show that they were only canvassing and not playing any role in making or publishing the advertisements. He further submits that original authority’s finding is that they took part in making and preparation of the advertisement by giving size (number of lines), position (classified or otherwise) and heading of the advertisement” and therefore they were acting as advertisement agency and therefore the cited Board’s circular will not come to their rescue. Hence demand of tax is legal and proper in this case.
 
Reasoning of judgment:-Considered submissions on both sides. Since 1996, when the entry for taxing services of Advertising Agencies was enacted, no service tax is levied on the charges levied by print media forpublishing advertisements as was clarified initially by CBEC videcircular F. No. 341/43/96-TRU, dated 31-10-1996 and continued in Circular dated 23-8-2007 pointed out by the counsel for applicant. Further the position got explicitly incorporated in entry 65(105)(zzzm) introduced, since 1-5-2006, in Finance Act, 1994. If such charges are not taxable in the hands of print media it cannot be taxable in the hands of agents who just collect and remit the money to the print media. There is no finding on the contention ofapplicant in reply to show cause notice that they had made payment to print media and such payment could not form consideration in their hands whatever be the type of activity (giving advice about number of lines and heading for advertisement, etc., or just canvassing clients for the print media) that they have done and whatever be the heading under which it is sought to be taxed (i.e. as business auxiliary service or advertising services).It is not clear as to from where the figures are taken for issuing the demand. If it is from financial statements of the applicant. revenue has an obligation to verify the same statement to give a finding on the contention of the applicant that the monies received from the clients were remitted to the print media is correct or not. In the absence of such clear finding, prima facie we are of the view that the applicant was canvassing advertisement and receiving commission and considering the fact that they have already paid tax on commission received, it is appropriate to grant waiver of pre-deposit of dues for admission of appeal. It is so ordered. Further there shall be stay on collection on such dues arising from the impugned order during pendency of appeal.
 
Decision:- Stay application allowed.

Comment:- The crux of the case is that the service provider engaged in the business of canvassing advertisement cannot be asked to pay service tax on the amount remitted to the print media for publishing advertisement because the same is exempt from the levy of service tax.
Prepared by:-Neelam Jain
 
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com