Why did Anushka Sharma file petitions through tax consultants and not herself? Bombay High Court in tax case

The Bombay High Court recently took exception to the petitions filed by Bollywood actress and producer Anushka Sharma in a sales tax case, questioning why the pleas were filed through her tax consultants and not by herself..The actress had challenged orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax at Mazgaon, Mumbai raising dues for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) Act.The Court questioned why the petition was not filed on the affirmation of the actress, and instead on the affirmation of her tax consultant. “These Petitions are filed through Taxation Consultant of the Petitioner. There is no reason shown as to why the Petitioner cannot file these Petitions on solemn affirmation,” a Division Bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Gauri Godse stated. .Additional government pleader Jyoti Chavan argued that Sharma also had an alternate remedy to challenge the order before the appellate authority. Accordingly, the Court recorded in its order that the question of alternate remedy raised by the State was kept open. Appearing for Sharma, Advocate Deepak Bapat contended that there was no provision to file an appeal unless 10% of the disputed tax is paid. The Bench, however, enquired if there was any provision under the Bombay High Court Original Side Rules providing for petitions to be filed through tax consultants. Bapat responded that the petitions would be withdrawn and fresh pleas would be filed. The Bench then disposed of the petitions and granted liberty to Sharma to file fresh ones. .Sharma’s petitions stated that the assessing officer (AO) had wrongly levied sales tax on the consideration she received for endorsements and anchoring at award functions.For the assessment year 2012-13, the sales tax levied was ₹1.2 crore (inclusive of interest) on the consideration of ₹12.3 crore; for assessment year 2013-14, the tax levied was ₹1.6 crore on approximately ₹17 crore consideration, Sharma pointed out in her plea. She contended that the AO erroneously held that through endorsements and anchoring award functions, she had acquired copyright, which is goods of intangible nature and sold or transferred them. The actress also contended that copyright of videos was always retained by the producer, who also owned such videos and performer’s rights, which were not capable of being transferred or sold..[Read order]