9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he game of cricket in the State of Karnataka. The appellant is permitted to conduct cricket matches in accordance with the rules and regulations of BCCI. The appellant is registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act and also exempted from payment of income tax as a charitable institution in terms of Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant is not engaged in any trade, commerce or business, except for promotion of game of cricket. The appellant is also registered with the Service Tax Department under the category of 'Club or Association Services' and also registered under the category of 'Mandap Keeper Services' and for these services, the appellants have been discharging the Service Tax liability and filing Returns regularly. The Department entertained a view that the appellants are evading the payment of Service Tax under the category of Business Advertising Agency, Business Auxiliary Service, and Mandap Keeper Service. The Department conducted verification of the records of the appellant and recorded the statements of its Accounts Manager, Sh. S.Raghavendra. Based on the said verification, a SCN dated 20.04.2007 was issued alleging the followings: (i) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vertisement and the same cannot be classifiable under 'Advertising Agency' as defined in Section 65(3) of the Act. He further submitted that the said activity is nothing but 'sale of space for advertisement' and the same is taxable in terms of Section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Act w.e.f. 01.05.2006. He further submitted that in the case of Vidarbha Cricket Association Vs CCE, Nagpur reported in 2015 (38) STR 99 (Tri. Mumbai), the Tribunal examined the similar agreement entered by the same party with M/s. Vidarbha Cricket Association, Nagpur and has upheld the classification of the said service under 'sale of space for advertisement' as defined in Section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Act. He also placed reliance in the case of The Tamil Nadu Cricket Association Vs CST, Chennai reported in 2018 (2) TMI 235 (CESTAT, Chennai) wherein the Department has accepted the classification of similar activity to M/s. Sporting Frontiers (India) Pvt. Ltd. under 'sale of space for advertisement'. He further submitted that prior to substituting the word "commercial concern" with "any person" in the definition of 'Advertising Agency' as defined in Section 65(3) of the Act w.e.f. 01.05.2006, the service provided b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ship amount towards teams and in turn the appellant has allowed the brand owners to display their brands on all the clothing worn by the team on the field during matches. In the said activity except displaying brands of their clients, there is no brand promotion or marketing of products or services of the client by the appellant to classify the same under the head of "BAS". He also submitted that the activity of displaying the sponsor's logo/brand name or trade name falls under the head of "sponsorship" service as defined in Section 99(a) of the Finance Act, 1994, which came into effect only from 01.05.2006 and the said activity cannot be made liable to service tax under the head of "BAS" for the period prior to 01.05.2006. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of BCCI Vs CST, Mumbai reported 2007 (7) STR 384 (Tri. Mumbai). As far as demand of service tax under 'Mandap Keeper Service' is concerned, learned Counsel submitted that the appellant has let out its ground to one Sangamitra Foundation for a fund raising activity for a consideration of Rs. 17,50,000/-. The Department has taxed this amount under the category of 'Mandap Keeper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve or priority rights, sponsoring prizes or trophies for competition; but does not include financial or other support in the form of donations or gifts, given by the subject to the condition that the service provider is under no obligation vide anything in return to such donors. 4. "Mandap" means any immovable property as defined in section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) and includes any furniture, fixtures, light fittings and floor coverings therein let out for a consideration for organizing any official, social or business function. 5. "Mandap Keeper" means a person who allows temporary occupation of a Mandap for a consideration for organizing any official, social or business function. 6.1. Further, we find that perusal of the "Instadia Advertisement Agreement" entered into with M/s. Sporting Frontiers (India) Pvt. Ltd., the appellant has granted them the right to use the advertising sites, right to exhibit advertising of any kind and right to use advertising signs during the cricket matches and extra matches but the appellant is not providing any service connected with the making, preparation, display or exhibition of advertisement activity thereby appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided in favour of the appellant in the case of BCCI Vs CST cited supra therefore we hold that the demand of service tax under 'BAS' is also not sustainable in law. As far as amount received for fund raising activity under the category of 'Mandap Keeper Service' is concerned, we find that the appellants have let out its ground to one Sangamitra Foundation for a fund raising activity for a consideration of Rs. 17,50,000/- but the appellant did not get the service tax from the said organization on the bona fide belief that fund raising activity is not business or official or social function. After considering the definition of 'Mandap Keeper Service', we find that this activity of the appellant fall under the category of 'Mandap Keeper Service' and the appellant is liable to pay the service tax amounting to Rs. 1,78,500/-. Further, we find that the appellants have not collected the service tax on this activity from the service recipient under a bona fide belief otherwise the appellants have regularly been paying service tax wherever they have charged the same under the category 'Mandap Keeper Service' from the service recipient. Therefore, in our view, the appellants are not liable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
