9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to imposition of service tax on advertising agency under Finance (No. 2) Act of 1996. Analysis: The petitioner, a small scale industrial unit engaged in printing materials for customers, challenges the imposition of service tax on advertising agency services. The petitioner argues that it functions like a printing press, not an advertising agency, as it prints materials like banners based on customer requirements without knowledge of their use. The Finance (No. 2) Act of 1996 extended service tax to "advertising agency" services, defined under Section 65(1)(A) and 65(16)(d) of the Act. The petitioner raises three contentions: violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and exclusion from service tax due to not being classified as an advertising agency. The court dismisses these contentions, stating that a fiscal statute does not violate the fundamental right to carry on business. Imposition of a tax for public benefit is legitimate, especially when the tax rate is reasonable at five percent of gross consideration received. The court upholds the State's right to impose taxes in public interest. Regarding the contention of Article 14 violation, the court emphasizes that legislative decisions on taxation are within the discretion of the Legislature, and courts should not interfere unless for explicit reasons. The court cites precedents to support minimal interference with fiscal statutes under Article 14. The final contention questions whether the petitioner's services qualify as "taxable service" under the Act. The court notes a factual dispute requiring evidence for resolution and directs the assessing authority to determine the nature of the petitioner's business activity to decide tax liability. In conclusion, the court finds the challenges to the Act baseless and dismisses the petition without costs, highlighting the need for factual evidence to resolve the dispute over the petitioner's business activity classification under the Act.
|
