TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alcutta 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 Support Service. The remuneration received by the respondent from the franchisee M/s KPH cannot be taxed as ‘Business Support Service’ - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/54359/2015-CU (DB) - ST/A/52 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 thousand three hundred and forty three only) in respect of services provided under Business Support Service should not be demanded and recovered from him under provision of Section 73(1) of the Act by invoking h the extended period; (iii) Penalty under Section 77(1)(a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imize 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 services rendered by him to the franchisee in connection with the IPL were liable to service tax. It was his further submission that the franchisee M/s. KPH provided Sponsorship Services to various sponsors and this way M/s. KPH were serving the business or comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese 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 respondent employee of KPH. He was rather playing for KPH without having any independent entity. Whatever output/goals were achieved, were by the team as a whole and there could not be any quantification of any work done or service provided by the respondent. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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. Thus he provided taxable service when he wore apparel provide by the franchisee that was embossed with commercial endorsement or when he participated in endorsement event. The Department admits that the free charged for playing the matches will fall outside THE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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 by the franchisee. The apparel that he had to wear was team clothing and the same could not exhibit any badge, logo, mark, trade name etc. The Petitioner was not providing any service as an independence individual worker. His status was that of an employ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
