2023 (6) TMI 956 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of Service Tax - Business Auxiliary Service - amount received as remuneration for playing cricket for ISPL - HELD THAT - The total amount of remuneration received is towards engaging the appellant by ISPL to play cricket in India Premier League matches. In the identical agreements, in respect of other players engaged by different teams, in all those cased, this Tribunal relying on the High Court in the case of SOURAV GANGULY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS 2016 (7) TMI 237 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT held that arrangement between the owner Company and the cricket player is of employment hence, players are not directly involved in brand promotion of a brand owner. Therefore, the activity of the cricket player does not fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. As per this settles legal position, in the present case also involving similar agreement and arrangement, the demand of under Business Auxiliary Service does not sustain. The demand raised in the impugned orders is not sustainable - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves whether the remuneration received by a cricket player for playing in the Indian Premier League constitutes a taxable service under Business Auxiliary Service attracting service tax.

Summary:

Issue 1: Taxability of remuneration under Business Auxiliary Service:
The appellant, a cricket player, received remuneration for playing cricket in the Indian Premier League for a team owned by a company. The department contended that the remuneration received by the appellant was for brand promotion services falling under Business Auxiliary Service and hence taxable under service tax.

Details:
The appellant argued that the remuneration was for his employment with the company and not for brand promotion services. Citing various judgments, including those of Yusuf Khan M Pathan, Commissioner of Cus. & C.Ex., Goa Vs. Swapnil Asnodkar, and others, it was contended that the employment agreement did not attract service tax. The Tribunal noted that in similar cases involving employment agreements between cricket players and team owners, it was held that players were not directly involved in brand promotion, and thus not liable for Business Auxiliary Service tax. Relying on settled legal positions, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for service tax under Business Auxiliary Service was not sustainable in the present case.

Decision:
After considering the submissions and perusing the records, the Tribunal found that the remuneration received by the appellant was for playing cricket in the Indian Premier League matches and not for brand promotion services. Therefore, the demand raised for service tax under Business Auxiliary Service was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Conclusion:
The impugned order was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, with the demand for service tax under Business Auxiliary Service being set aside.