Wall Rent Includible in Taxable Value for Advertising Services; Value of Printed Flexes Exempt: CESTAT [Read Order]
Tribunal held that the value of printed flexes supplied by a related entity is exempt from service tax if VAT has been discharged on the goods, applying the exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST
The Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has ruled that expenses incurred on "wall rent" form an intrinsic part of the taxable value for advertising agency services and cannot be excluded as reimbursable expenditure. However, the Tribunal held that the value of printed flexes supplied by a related entity is exempt from service tax if VAT has been discharged on the goods, applying the exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST.
M/s Punjab Advertising Co., the appellant, provided advertising services by painting ads on rented walls and displaying hoardings. The Revenue Department issued show cause notices alleging that the appellant had excluded wall rent payments and the cost of printed flexes (supplied by M/s Sonia Plastics, a related HUF) from their taxable value. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands, which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
The appellant contended that wall rent was reimbursed to clients as a "pure agent" and did not constitute consideration for service, citing the Supreme Court decision in Union of India Vs Intercontinental Consultants. Regarding the flexes, it was argued that M/s Sonia Plastics was a separate legal entity that paid VAT on the goods sold, making the value exempt under the "sale of goods" exclusion.
The Revenue argued that wall rent was an essential cost for providing the service and the appellant failed to prove "pure agent" status due to a lack of direct contracts between clients and wall owners. They alleged that the flexes were supplied by a related party and used by the appellant, thus forming part of the service value.
The Coram, comprising Members S.S. Garg (Judicial) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical), observed that wall rent was organically connected to the advertising service; without the wall, the service could not be rendered. Distinguishing the Intercontinental Consultants case, the Tribunal held that since the expenditure was an essential ingredient of the service, it was includible in the assessable value. The Bench noted that documents titled "Agreement Form Cum Receipt" were signed only by wall owners and failed to establish a pure agent relationship.
On the issue of printed flexes, the Tribunal found that M/s Sonia Plastics maintained a separate legal identity and paid applicable VAT. Relying on the principle that service tax and VAT are mutually exclusive, the Bench held that the value of goods sold is exempt under Notification No. 12/2003-ST. Consequently, the demand to include the flex value was set aside.
Regarding the extended period of limitation, the Tribunal cited Pushpam Pharmaceuticals, ruling that mere non-disclosure without mens rea does not justify invoking the extended period. Finding that the appellant was registered and filed returns regularly, the Tribunal set aside the penalties under Sections 76 and 77.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
