9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 723 - AT - Service TaxRecovery of service tax alongwith interest and penalties - Business Auxiliary Service - Business Support Service - agreements with M/s Rathipriya Trading Pvt. Ltd. presently known as M/s Indiawin Sports Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai (ISPL) for playing in Indian Premiere League - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in its judgment in the case of SOURAV GANGULY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX KOLKATA (NOW COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS SERVICE TAX CENTRAL EXCISE KOLKATA SOUTH) 2020 (12) TMI 534 - CESTAT KOLKATA has relied on the case of CST DELHI VERSUS MS. SHRIYA SARAN 2014 (7) TMI 78 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and the Hon ble Calcutta High Court s decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX AND ANR. VERSUS SOURAV GANGULY AND ORS. 2019 (10) TMI 221 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT and this judgment has been followed in many other cases. The Hon ble High Court of Calcutta held that the remuneration received by the petitioner from the IPL franchisee could not be taxed under business support service. The issue is no longer res integra - Appeal allowed.
Issues involved: Determination of service tax liability u/s Business Auxiliary Service and Business Support Service for agreements related to Indian Premiere League.
Summary: Issue 1: Service Tax Liability u/s Business Auxiliary Service and Business Support Service The appellant, a cricketer, entered agreements with M/s Rathipriya Trading Pvt. Ltd. for playing in Indian Premiere League, providing services to various IPL franchisees. A show-cause notice was issued for service tax payment. The appellant argued that similar cases involving IPL players were decided in their favor by the Tribunal and High Courts. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments and held that the appellant's status was that of an employee, not an independent worker, contractor, or consultant, thus not providing business support service. The Tribunal also quashed a circular stating that composite fees for playing matches and promotional activities should be taxed, as it was beyond the statutory provisions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the appellant, as a cricketer in the IPL, was not liable for service tax u/s Business Auxiliary Service and Business Support Service, based on the nature of their engagement and previous legal interpretations.
|
