Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1185

Whether the amount retained by advertising agency 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?
Case:- M/s LINTAS INDIA PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-II
 
Citation: - 2012-TIOL-982-CESTAT-MUM
 
Issue: Whether the amount retained by advertising agency 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?

Brief fact: -The brief facts of the case are that 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 Applicant are getting certain commission and discharging the service tax liability. There is no dispute regarding discharging of the service tax liability on commission received. 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 media 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 count 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 appellant before us is seeking waiver of pre deposit of the impugned demands.

Appellant 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 the main activity of the applicant is advertising agency and for that they receive a commission. On that 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.
 
Appellant 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, he relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income vs. Heros Publicity Services – 2001 (248) ITR 256 (Bom.). He further submitted that most of the demands are barred by limitation.
 
He further submitted that in the case of Group M Media India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST vide order no. M/436/11/CSTB/C-I dated 20.10.2011 = (2012-TIOL-804-CESTAT-MUM), 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 contention:- The Respondentsubmitted 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 Tribunal is of the view 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 respondent. 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, Tribunal direct the applicant to make a pre-deposit of 25% of Rs.1,36,84,668/-.
 
The Tribunal contended that 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, Tribunal waive the requirement of tax of Rs.84,58,513/- demanded on account of Volume discounts. In the above term, the stay application is dispose of.
 
Decision: - Stay application disposed off.

Comment:- In this decision, the service tax is demanded on write back. But there is reverse situation also. The advertising agencies pass on the certain part of commission to the client. In that case, whether the service tax is to be paid on the amount actually received by the advertising agency from the pring media. This is being demanded by the department. Else, the actual amount received from the client is to be taken as taxable value. The definition of “value of taxable service” also says that the amount charged from the client. Hence the service tax is to be paid on this amount. But this is not acceptable to the department.
 
 
 
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