Golcha Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Golcha Cinema) Vs Principal Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Delhi)
The agreement with M/s. A.A. Films that was enclosed as the seventh relied upon document has only to be examined. A perusal of the agreement between the Appellant and the Distributor would also make it abundantly clear that it is the Appellant who makes payment to the Distributor for grant of theatrical rights. This clearly indicates the flow of service and the consideration. Thus, as it is the Appellant who pays a fixed consideration to the Distributor, no service tax can be levied on the Appellant.
It was held that the demand of service tax under ‘renting of immovable property’ service was not justified for the reason that the Appellant had not provided any service to the Distributor, nor the Distributor had made any payment to the Appellant as a consideration for the alleged service.
Source Taxguru
Latest Posts in "India"
- India’s E-Invoicing Rules: Scope, Formats, Penalties, and Compliance Under the GST Framework
- Continuous Supply of Services Under GST: Legal Criteria Versus Commercial Practice Explained
- Tripura HC: ITC Cannot Be Denied to Bona Fide Purchaser for Supplier’s Tax Default
- Ready-to-Drink Non-Alcoholic Beverages Like Mojito to Attract 40% GST, Rules WB AAR
- Bombay HC: Assignment of Long-Term Industrial Leasehold Rights Not Taxable as ‘Supply’ Under GST
