Trade discounts to ad agencies not commission under s. 194H; wrongful TDS demand quashed for natural justice violation

The HC held that the trade discount given by newspaper publishers to advertising agencies under INS rules does not constitute commission liable to TDS under s. 194H, as the agencies act as principals, not agents. The petitioner was wrongly treated as an assessee-in-default under s. 201 since no tax was unpaid by the petitioner directly. The assessing authority's reliance on irrelevant material, ignoring INS rules and CBDT Circular No. 715, vitiated the assessment. The writ petition was maintainable given the substantial liability and multiplicity of proceedings. The court emphasized the Department's duty to make correct assessments respecting natural justice and ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the demand for tax and interest.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
2. Jurisdictional facts for initiating proceedings under Sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Relationship between petitioner and advertising agency (principal-agent relationship).
4. Nature of services rendered by advertising agencies.
5. Classification of trade discount as commission under Section 194H.
6. Applicability of judgments from Kerala High Court and Delhi High Court.
7. Liability of tax payment by deductor under Section 201.
8. Liability of tax payment by assessee under Section 191.
9. Conditions for deeming a deductor as an assessee in default.
10. Consideration of relevant and irrelevant materials by assessing authority.
11. Violation of principles of natural justice.
12. Reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226:
The court held that the petitioner can invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to challenge the notices and assessment orders on the ground that there were no foundational facts to assume jurisdiction under Sections 201 and 201(1A). The court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction can be exercised when the authority acts without jurisdiction or there is a violation of principles of natural justice.

2. Jurisdictional facts for initiating proceedings under Sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act:
The court found that the jurisdictional facts required for initiating proceedings under Sections 201 and 201(1A) were not present. The court emphasized that the relationship between the petitioner and the advertising agencies was not that of principal and agent, and the advertising agencies did not render services to the petitioner.

3. Relationship between petitioner and advertising agency (principal-agent relationship):
The court concluded that the relationship between the petitioner and the advertising agencies was on a principal-to-principal basis and not that of principal and agent. The court relied on the rules of the Indian Newspapers Society (INS) and the agreements between the advertising agencies and the INS to determine that the advertising agencies were not agents of the petitioner.

4. Nature of services rendered by advertising agencies:
The court held that the advertising agencies rendered services to the advertisers (clients) and not to the petitioner. The court referred to the rules of the INS and the agreements between the advertising agencies and the INS to support this conclusion.

5. Classification of trade discount as commission under Section 194H:
The court found that the 15% trade discount allowed by the petitioner to the advertising agencies could not be classified as commission under Section 194H. The court relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Living Media India Ltd., which held that the trade discount allowed to advertising agencies was not commission and was not subject to tax deduction at source under Section 194H.

6. Applicability of judgments from Kerala High Court and Delhi High Court:
The court held that the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Living Media India Ltd. was applicable to the present case and not the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Prasar Bharati. The court noted that the facts of the Kerala High Court case were different as there was an explicit agreement between Doordarshan and the advertising agencies, which was not the case here.

7. Liability of tax payment by deductor under Section 201:
The court held that under Section 201, the liability of the deductor is limited to interest and penalty and not the payment of the tax which was not deducted at source. The court emphasized that the primary liability to pay tax is on the assessee whose income is to be taxed.

8. Liability of tax payment by assessee under Section 191:
The court reiterated that under Section 191, the liability to pay tax is on the assessee directly if the tax has not been deducted at source. The court emphasized that the deductor can be deemed to be an assessee in default only if the assessee has also failed to pay the tax directly.

9. Conditions for deeming a deductor as an assessee in default:
The court held that a deductor can be deemed to be an assessee in default under Section 201 only if it is found that the assessee has also failed to pay the tax directly. The court emphasized that this is a jurisdictional fact that must be established before deeming the deductor as an assessee in default.

10. Consideration of relevant and irrelevant materials by assessing authority:
The court found that the assessing authority had not considered relevant materials, such as the Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 8.8.1995 and its clarification dated 12.9.1995. The court also found that the assessing authority had relied on irrelevant materials, such as an article published in the newspaper 'Business Standard'.

11. Violation of principles of natural justice:
The court held that there was a violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to present relevant materials. The court noted that the proceedings were rushed and concluded within ten days, denying the petitioner reasonable time to compile and submit the required details.

12. Reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled:
The court set aside the proceedings initiated vide notices dated 19.3.2012 and 21.3.2012 and the assessment orders dated 28.3.2012 and 29.3.2012. The court allowed the writ petition and directed that the parties shall bear their own costs.

---