Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 202 - AT - Service TaxLevy of Service tax - Business auxiliary services - Appellant approach the print media like various daily newspapers and get these advertisements published, material to be published in the print media is given by clients - HELD THAT:- From the documentary evidence, it is seen that for getting the advertisement published, the Appellant gets an invoice from the print media wherein they are giving discount of 10%-15%. After the advertisement is published, the Appellant is raising the invoice on Government of Andhra Pradesh and other clients wherein he is charging the full amount. The difference between the invoice raised by the Appellant on their clients and invoice raised on the Appellant by the print media is the margin which is available to the Appellant - In this case, it is seen that it is a kind of trading activity in services. The Appellant first books the space by getting certain discount and sells the same at a higher rate to their clients. Therefore, the discount being received by him from the print media is nothing but a profit margin and not any commission received from the print media. In the case of GREY WORLDWIDE (I) PVT LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI [2014 (9) TMI 180 - CESTAT MUMBAI] it is held it can be seen that the Tribunal has been consistently taking the stand that incentives received by an advertising agency from the media without any contractual obligation to render any service cannot be levied to Service Tax under the category of BAS. The amount of incentive received by the Advertising Agency from the print media has been under litigation and the Tribunals have been consistently holding that such incentives or discounts cannot be termed as Business Auxiliary Service. On going through the case law relied upon by the Revenue, MALAR PUBLICATIONS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [2018 (1) TMI 1058 - CESTAT CHENNAI]), it is seen that the facts are different. There the Appellants were canvassing advertisements for the publications like Daily Thanthi, Rani Weekly etc., and were getting fixed retainership fee for their work. Therefore, the decision arrived at by the Tribunal in the case of Malar Publications Ltd is distinguishable and cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. The confirmed demand on the ground that the Appellant was providing Business Auxiliary Services to the print media cannot legally sustai - Appeal allowed.
|