Anushka Sharma has approached the Bombay High Court for quashing what she believes is an inflated tax notice. The actor has filed a plea in the court challenging two orders passed by the deputy commissioner of Sales Tax on dues for 2012-13 and 2013-14 countering that she should be taxed as a performer. The orders have been passed under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act. She alleged in her plea that the tax officials have assessed her at a higher rate than would apply to an actor or a performer and has urged the court to cancel the Sales Tax department’s order.
Judges Nitin Jamdar and Abhay Ahuja today directed the sales tax department to respond the actor’s appeal. They adjourned the case to its next hearing on February 6. Anushka has filed four petitions between 2012 and 2016 and filed fresh ones last week after the High Court in December refused to entertain her tax consultant’s plea challenging the tax orders. The High Court said, “There was no reason why the affected person (Anushka) could not file the petitions herself.”
Anushka has argued in her plea that she performed in films and at award functions as a performer as part of a tri-party agreement with her agent, Yash Raj Films and the producers and the event organizers. However, she was taxed not as a film actor but on product endorsements and for anchoring award shows. Her appeal highlighted that the tax department assumed that she had transferred her performer’s rights and by endorsing products and attending award shows she had acquired copyrights and sold them. Her appeal pointed out that the copyrights of the videos continue to be with the producer and not the actor or performer.
Anushka was asked to pay Rs 1.2 crore in 2012-13 and Rs 1.6 crore in 2013-14. The actor said in her application, “Unless it is established that there is a sale of goods (tangible or intangible), sales tax cannot be levied.” She said an actor who has performed a role in a movie cannot be called a creator or producer of the film and so, does not own copyrights of the film. The petitions said, “The petitioner submits that as an actor does not possess any copyright in the film, the question of transferring/selling the same to any other person or producer does not arise.” She further said in her pleas, “Performer's rights are to protect the interests of the actor and are not for transfer or sale.”
The actor also said in her petition that there was no provision to file an appeal before the appellate authority unless 10% of the disputed tax was paid.
(Source: PTI)
