Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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