|
IV. Useful Case Laws:
1. Ms. Katrina R. Turcotte Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Appeal No. ST/387 of 2011, Dated: 09-10-2012, CESTAT- Mumbai
Katrina Kaif (Assessee) not liable to pay service tax if already paid by agent
Facts of the Case:
In this case,
the appellant has provided the service for promotion of product by
agreeing as model herself for advertisement films, TV commercials, still
photographing, footage, press advertisement, outdoor, packaging and
sales material etc. The revenue is of the view that as the appellant is
engaged in the activity of promoting/marketing or sales of the product
manufactured by her client etc., therefore, the said activity falls
under “Business Auxiliary Service” The appellants contention is that
appellant has appointed M/s Matrix as their agent to receive payment on
behalf of the appellant from the clients and thereafter discharge the
service tax liability on the above activity.
Held:
As M/s Matrix
(Agent of Assessee) has paid the service tax under the category of
Advertisement Agency Service that does not mean that M/s Matrix has not
paid service tax on behalf of the appellant. By mere paying the service
tax liability under wrong head does not meant that service tax liability
has not been discharged. The allegation of the revenue that service has
been rendered by appellant but has not discharged the service tax
liability is not sustainable as per section 65(7) of the Finance Act,
wherein the ‘assessee’ means a person liable to pay service tax and
includes his agent.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. Ingram Micro (India) Exports Vs. Dy. CIT, ITA Nos. 8133,
8137,8138,8136, 8135 & 8132/Mum/2010, Date of Order: 21/12/2012,
ITAT- Mumbai
Sec. 153C search assessment is void if AO’s satisfaction not recorded
Held that
there is no satisfaction recorded by AO before initiating proceedings
under section 153C, considering the fact that AO refused to allow
inspection to assessee as recorded by the bench on 20.04.2011. The
Revenue has not been able to show any satisfaction recorded either in
the case of searched person or in the case of assessee and consequently
in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Manish Maheshwari vs. ACIT 289 ITR 341 (SC), a notice issued
under section 153C r.w.s. 153A is liable to be held as invalid. Thus,
the consequential assessments passed under section 153C r.w.s. 144C are
annulled on account of the invalidity of the notices under section 153C.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now