On Thursday, January 12, the Bombay High Court petition ordered the Maharashtra government to reply to a plea filed by Bollywood actress Anushka Sharma that challenges an order issued against her by the sales tax department for tax recovery for the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. The order was issued by the Mazgaon sales tax deputy commissioner under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) Act.
A bench comprising Justice Nitin M Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja was hearing Anushka Sharma’s plea that the assessing officer had incorrectly levied sales tax on the fees she received for endorsements and anchoring award functions. For 2012-13, the authority levied Rs 1.2 crore in sales tax (including interest) on Rs 12.3 crore received by Anushka Sharma. Similarly, sales tax of Rs 1.6 crore was levied on her for the Rs 17 crore she received in 2013-14.
In her plea, the actress also asked the court to stay the recovery of the amount related to the tax levied in the impugned orders. The petition also requested an interim injunction to prevent the assessment officer from issuing orders for the following period until 2017.
According to Sharma’s petition, she worked as a performer in films and at awards shows as part of a three-party agreement with her agent, Yashraj Films Pvt Ltd, and producers or event organizers.
The assessing officer, however, “erroneously” noted that Sharma had acquired copyright through endorsements and anchoring award functions, and had sold or transferred it. As a result, sales tax was levied on product endorsements and hosting award ceremonies rather than on film consideration.
Sharma’s counsel Deepak Bapat, however, stated that the show’s producers have always owned the copyright to the respective videos. He added that because the copyright is owned by the producers, Anushka could not sell or transfer it.
Furthermore, the actress claimed that an actor who has played a role in a film cannot be called the film’s creator or producer, and thus does not own the film’s copyrights.
“The performer’s rights are not copyrights and they are not capable of being transferred,” the actress said.
Notably, Sharma had earlier filed pleas through her tax consultant Shrikant Velekar last month. However, a bench comprising Justice Jamdar and Gauri Godse disposed of the plea and slammed the actress for filing the plea through her taxation consultant instead of filing it by herself.
In an order dated 15 December 2022, the bench said, “There’s no reason shown as to why the petitioner cannot file these petitions on solemn affirmation.”
Following this, Sharma withdrew her plea and filed a fresh plea in her own affirmation. Granting time to respond to Sharma’s plea as sought by Additional Government pleader Jyoti Chavan, the court posted the matter for further hearing on February 6.
