TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... motional activities apart from playing cricket for their franchisee and the department sought to tax the consideration received by the Petitioner from their franchisee under ‘Business Support Service’ - The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta held that the Petitioner was engaged as a professional cricketer for which the franchisee was to provide fee to the petitioner. He was under full control of the franchisee and had to act in the manner instructed by the franchisee. The Hon’ble High Court further held that the Petitioner therein was not providing any service as an independent individual worker and his status was that of an employee. Therefore it cannot be said that the Petitioner was rendering any service which could be classified as Business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The players including the respondent were also required to participate in the specially arranged promotional activities through media or others. 3. According to the department, the respondent did not pay service tax against the payments received for rendering taxable services in or in relation to IPL tournaments held during the financial years 2008-09 to 2011-12 and accordingly a show cause notice dated 23.10.2013 was issued to the Appellant as to why:- (i) The service provided by him to M/s KPH are not classifiable under Business Support Service as taxable in terms of section 65(105) (zzb) of Finance Act, 1994; (ii) Service tax including Edu./SHE Cess not paid amounting to ₹ 56,48,343/-(Rs. Fifty six lakh forty eight th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nchisee to get photographed, filmed, televised, identified and otherwise, to record his performance during the matches for the promotion of the franchisee s commercial interest. As per sub-clause 4.2, he had agreed to assist and co-operate with the franchisee to maximize their promotional benefits and commercial interests from his association with the franchisee. As per clause 5 titled Team Clothing he had agreed to wear and use only the team clothing authorized and/or supplied to him by the franchisee, any helmet which the player wears bear only sponsors logo. He further submitted that the services rendered by him were distinct from playing cricket only and as such were appropriately classifiable under Business Support Service , thus se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incidental to whole tournament and also simultaneously proves that 90% of the payment, the respondent is receiving is on account of playing cricket matches alone and the payment for such promotional activities is 10% of the total fees and the time devoted for these activities are just ancillary to the main activity of playing cricket. He also submitted that the show cause notice is time barred being issued on 23.10.2013 for the period 2008-09 to 2010. He further submitted that there was no intent to evade payment of tax as the amount received by the respondent is not a consideration for any service provided by him rather it is remuneration for playing cricket match. 6. It is clear that the terms and conditions of the agreement made the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us was that of an employee. Therefore it cannot be said that the Petitioner was rendering any service which could be classified as Business Support Service. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are extracted as under:- 68. As regards the remuneration received by the petitioner for playing IPL cricket, in my opinion, the service tax demand raised on such amount under the head of Business Support Service is also not legally tenable. Accordingly to the Department, the terms of the contract that the petitioner entered into with M/s Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd. would reveal that the petitioner s obligation was not limited to displaying his cricket skills in a cricket match. He also lent himself to business promotional activities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zq) pertains to brand promotion whereas Sec. 65(104c) pertains to business auxiliary services. They are two distinct and separate categories. As already indicated above, the taxable head of brand promotion was not in existence prior to 1 July, 2010, hence, reliance on that head for levying tax on the amount received by the petitioner from the IPL franchisee is misplaced and misconducted. This is sufficient to vitiate the order. 69. Further, I find from the contract entered into by the petitioner with the IPL franchisee that the petitioner was engaged as a professional cricketer for which the franchisee was to provide fee to the petitioner. The petitioner was under full control of the franchisee and had to act in the manner instructed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
