Banner printing without creative involvement is not advertising agency service; uncorroborated TDS data cannot justify extended limitation.

Mere preparation and printing of banners, without designing, conceptualising or visualising advertisements, does not amount to advertising agency service, so the activity was held outside the tax net. A demand based only on TDS and 26AS data, without corroborative enquiry into the nature of service, recipients, timing or consideration, was found unsustainable. In the absence of proof of suppression or other positive misstatement, invocation of the extended limitation period was also rejected, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the activity of preparing and printing banners without involvement in designing, conceptualising, or visualising advertisements falls within advertising agency service; (ii) Whether the demand could be sustained and the extended period invoked on the basis of TDS and 26AS data without corroborative enquiry or proof of suppression.

Issue (i): Whether the activity of preparing and printing banners without involvement in designing, conceptualising, or visualising advertisements falls within advertising agency service.

Analysis: The appellants were found to be engaged only in writing and printing banners supplied by clients, with no role in the design or conceptualisation of the advertisement. The service was examined in light of the settled position that mere preparation of advertising material, without creative or conceptual involvement, does not amount to advertising agency service.

Conclusion: The activity was held not to be taxable as advertising agency service.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand could be sustained and the extended period invoked on the basis of TDS and 26AS data without corroborative enquiry or proof of suppression.

Analysis: The demand was founded on information from the Income Tax Department, but no enquiry was conducted to establish the actual service rendered, the recipients, the timing, or the consideration received. No positive act of suppression or misstatement was brought on record, and the extended limitation period was therefore not justified. The demand was also held unsustainable on the evidentiary record relied upon by the department.

Conclusion: The demand and the invocation of the extended period were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere preparation or printing of banners, without designing or conceptualising advertisements, does not constitute advertising agency service; further, the extended period cannot be invoked absent proof of suppression or other positive conduct, and a demand must rest on proper corroborative enquiry and evidence.

---