Anushka Sharma liable to pay VAT, sales tax officer tells HC

The joint sales tax commissioner told the Bombay high court on Wednesday that actor Anushka Sharma was the first owner of copyright in all her artistic performances for which she had received fees and hence, the demands for dues towards the value added tax (VAT) for the assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14 were valid

The joint sales tax commissioner told the Bombay high court on Wednesday that actor Anushka Sharma was the first owner of copyright in all her artistic performances for which she had received fees and hence, the demands for dues towards the value added tax (VAT) for the assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14 were valid.

Indian cricketer Virat Kohli (L) and his wife Anushka Sharma pose during the 'Indian Sports Honours' in Mumbai on March 23, 2023. (Photo by SUJIT JAISWAL / AFP) (AFP)

Sharma has challenged the notices issued by the sales tax office at Mazgaon, asking her to pay ₹1.2 crore in VAT on the ₹12.3 crore she had received for endorsements, and anchoring award functions in 2012-13 and ₹1.6 crore in tax on the ₹17 crore she had got in 2013-14, as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) Act.

In her petition, filed through advocate Deepak Bapat in the first week of January, the actor had told a division bench headed by justice Nitin Jamdar that she had received consideration for her performances through an agent. These were services that she had offered and since she had no copyright over the content of the programmes, she could not be assessed for those, she had claimed.

In response to her plea, David Alvares, joint sales tax commissioner, large taxpayers’ unit, Mumbai, filed an affidavit on Wednesday.

“As per the agreement for services provided by Anushka Sharma, the actor receives fees for her artistic performance from the client company,” it said.

However, along with her artistic performance the copyright gets transferred and used by the client company for commercial purposes subsequently, like advertisements, for which she also receives consideration for a specific period, the affidavit said. “Hence, she is liable to pay VAT.”

Stating that the petitioner could approach the appellate authority or could file for a review of the order under the MVAT Act, Alvares said the petition should be dismissed.

The bench posted the hearing on Thursday.