The Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax in Mumbai has today informed the Bombay High Court that Bollywood actress and producer Anushka Sharma is the first owner of the copyright in every artistic performance she receives consideration for.
Therefore, The Commissioner sought dismissal of the petition filed by Sharma challenging orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax at Mazgaon, Mumbai raising dues for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) Act.
Opposing the petition, the Commissioner stated that “Anushka Sharma is the first owner of copyright created in every artistic performance. She is an artist entitled to copyright in every artistic performance. As per various tri-partite agreements for services provided by Anushka Sharma, along with her artistic performance, the copyright gets transferred and used by her client company for which she is receiving valuable consideration.”
He added that Sharma was providing her services and earning income through contracts for services.
Therefore, the reply stated, “She receives income for her artistic performance from the client company as per written terms and conditions of the tripartite agreement for a specific period. Her artistic performance is video recorded and used by a client company for commercial purposes like advertisements, etc. along with her artistic performance the copyright involved in her performance also gets transferred to such company.”
The reply also pointed out that ordinarily, the High Court does not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226.
“Where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. The High Court does not generally enter upon questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the rights to enforce which the writ is claimed.”
Apart from the provision for appeal, there is also a provision for review under the MVAT Act.
Anushka Sharma’s petitions stated that the assessing officer (AO) had wrongly levied sales tax on the consideration she use to receive for endorsements and anchoring at award functions.
Furthermore, she submitted that the AO erroneously held that she had acquired copyright through endorsements and anchoring award functions, and sold/transferred the same.
The actress contended that the copyright for videos was always retained by the producer, who also owned such videos and performer’s rights, which weren’t capable of being transferred or sold.
The petitions will be heard by the Court on March 30, 2023.
