YouTube is undoubtedly the TV for the millennials. I was recently at a family gathering and was talking to the NexGen kids about what they want to become when they grow up. To my surprise, one of them said, he want to become a YouTube creator. I said, that is fine, but, what do you want to do full-time? He has not changed his response. He said he wants to create content as a full-time job and post it on YouTube. No doubt, many of you who are reading this piece of article would have also got the same response in your gatherings. The immediate question that arises, if someone wants to pursue this as full time, will they be earning which is normally equivalent to a full time conventional job? I did a bit research and understood that in 2020, YouTube has paid Rs 6,800 Crores to YouTube Creators in India as part of their YouTube Partner Program (for brevity ‘YPP’). That roughly translates to 6.84 lakh full time jobs[1]. The numbers are astronomical, both the revenues earned and the YouTube Creators. Maybe we have all taken a wrong job (pun intended).

Read more: GST Implications on Incomes earned by YouTuber Creators

An interesting question has arisen before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (for brevity ‘NCLAT’) in the matter of Printland Digital (India) Private Limited vs Nirmal Trading Company[1]. The question involves the rights of the adjudicating authority, that is National Company Law Tribunal (for brevity ‘NCLT’).

The facts before Hon’ble NCLT, Delhi Bench, were that an application is filed by Nirmal Trading Company, an Operational Creditor against Printland Digital (India) Private Limited [‘Printland’], Corporate Debtor, for commencement of corporate insolvency resolution process. Printland has not filed its reply, even after giving sufficient opportunities. Accordingly, Honourable NCLT has passed the orders wherein the right to file any reply in the said case by Printland ceased to exist.

Read more: Does NCLT has Right to Recall Orders - A Study on Inherent Powers of NCLT under IBC Laws

In this 101^st edition, we bring you articles of certain academic nature. The article on ‘GST Implications on Income earned by YouTubers’ deals with the implications under GST laws of income earned by YouTubers located in India. Though the services are treated as export, the exact reason for such export looks confusing and hence our article.

The next article is on the inherent powers of NCLT while dealing with the  matter under IBC laws. There are instances, where there is a confusion as to what amounts to review and recall. In the article, by using the existing jurisprudence, we have detailed on the inherent powers of NCLT for recall of the order.

Read more: SBS Wiki E Journal December 2022

1. Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Prakash Chandra Mishra[1] - No Equalization levy is deductible when the person running the advertisement (ad), the target audience and the person displaying the ad are all located outside India:

The Jaipur Tribunal has held that the assessee is not liable to deduct equalization levy (‘EL’) on the advertisement charges paid to a non-resident on behalf of his clients who are non-residents having no Permanent Establishment, where the target audience are also located outside India. In this regard, considerations have been given to the provisions of section 165A of Finance Act, 2016 and section 9 of the ITA[2] where the intent of the statute has been clearly depicted that only those transactions that are having a territorial nexus with India can be covered under the purview of EL.

Read more: Summary of DT Decisions