Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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