Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1438

Whether advertising agency is liable for service tax on the amount retained from clients?


Case:-  LINTAS INDIA PVT. LTD. V/S COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-II
 
Citation:-  2013(29) S.T.R. 68 (Tri. - Mumbai)
 
Brief Facts: - The applicant undertook advertising work for their clients on two components (i) creation of advertising material and (ii) placement of advertising material in the media for display. For providing this service to their client i.e. advertising they are getting certain commission and discharging the service tax liability. There is no dispute on that. The dispute is regarding the payments received by applicant for media cost. For example out of Rs. 100/- billed to the client, Rs. 85/- is as media cost and Rs. 15/- as commission (which is taxable). Out of Rs. 85/- only Rs. 80/- is actually paid to the media. The allegation is that sometimes out of the media cost of Rs. 85/- payable to the broadcaster, the applicant paid less than Rs. 85/- to the broadcaster. As the applicants are paying less amount to the broadcaster and keeping some amount with them which has been written off in the books of accounts as “write backs”. The service tax demand on this amount has been confirmed for Rs. 1,36,84,668/- under the category of advertising agency service. Another demand of Rs. 84,58,513/- has been confirmed on discounts received by the applicant from media for giving bulk volume advertisement to them. This demand has been confirmed under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. The applicant is seeking waiver of pre-deposit of the impugned demands in this appeal.
 
Appellant’s Contention: - The appellant submits that the amount of “write backs” is payable by them at any time as asked by the persons on behalf of the short payment is made i.e. broadcaster or by the advertiser. He further submitted that their main activity is advertising agency and for that they receive a commission. On that commission they are discharging service tax liability. He further submits that the amount which they have to pay to media for advertisement is by error/dispute, therefore, the amount was paid less. Therefore, the said amount shall not form a part of taxable service. He further submitted that the amount retained by them as “write backs” cannot be treated as a part of service tax as the same is of the cost of the media and the same shall not be includable in their taxable amount. In support of their contention they relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Heros Publicity Services - 2001 (248) ITR 256 (Bom.). He further submitted that most of the demands are barred by limitation. For demand on account of volume discounts he submitted that in the case of Group M Media India Pvt. Ltd. v. CST vide Order No. M/436/11/CSTB/C-I, dated 20-10-2011, this Tribunal has granted unconditional waiver of pre-deposit. Therefore, he takes support of that decision and advanced arguments on the same line for this matter also.

Respondent’s Contention: - The respondent contends that as per Board’s Circular No. 341/43/96, dated 31-10-1996, it is clarified that the service tax is to be computed on gross amount charged by the advertising agency less amount paid to the print media. Admittedly, in this case the applicant has retained more amounts apart from the amount on which they have discharged the service tax liability, therefore the difference of the amount which they retained without paying the service tax, they are liable to pay service tax. He further submitted that in the case of Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd (supra), this Tribunal has granted unconditional waiver of pre-deposit on the facts that the client will decide the advertiser and the liberty was not given to the applicant, if same is the case of the applicant then the decision of Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is applicable.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the applicant is liable to pay service tax on the amount which they have retained with themselves i.e. the amount received from the client less amount paid to the media. Same view has been expressed by the Board’s Circular which relied upon by the learned A.R. In view of the observation prima facie they are of the view that the applicant has failed to made out a case for 100% waiver of pre-deposit of the demand confirmed against them on account of “Write backs”. Accordingly, they direct the applicant to make a pre-deposit of 25% of Rs. 1,36,84,668/- within eight weeks from today.
Further they find that the appellant has been able to show that in the present case also the advertising agency is not at the liberty to decide the advertiser. Therefore, the facts are somehow same to the facts of Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal has granted unconditional waiver of pre-deposit. Therefore, they waive the requirement of pre-deposit of tax Rs. 84,58,513/- demanded on account of Volume discounts.

Decision: - The stay was granted.

Comment:-This is also one of the issues that has not been able to resolved on account of various controversial judgments delivered. However, service tax should not be charged again on the amount retained from the clients as it is in the nature of profit and not Commission to be covered under BAS.

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