9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 377 - AT - Service TaxBrand Promotion services - tripartite agreement - Indian Premiere League Playing Contract - tripartite agreement between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), franchisee and the assessee the terms and conditions of which are common in respect of all the players/assessees except the remuneration - existence of employer-employee relationship or not - change of opinion - the service subsequently sought to be taxable under Business Support services - HELD THAT - The employer-employee relationship cannot be disputed and that therefore, the decision in the case of SOURAV GANGULY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS 2016 (7) TMI 237 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT relied on by the Ld. Consultant for the assessees which decision has been followed in SHRI KARN SHARMA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE S.T., MEERUT-L 2018 (4) TMI 111 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA VERSUS SHRI. SWAPNIL ASNODKAR 2018 (1) TMI 266 - CESTAT MUMBAI is squarely applicable to the present case also. A set of services alleged to be falling under BSS by the Revenue is also held to be covered under another set of services namely Brand Promotion Services. Admittedly, the brand promotion service was introduced w.e.f. 01.07.2010 and as observed as having been argued by the Ld. DR in paragraph-6 above of this order, cannot be made use to fit into another service ie., the categorization of the same set of activities under two different services for two different periods is not permissible. Having taxed under BSS, the Revenue should not have changed its stands for a different period when there is no change in the nature of services alleged. The decision of the Hon ble Kolkata High Court in the case of SOURAV GANGULY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS 2016 (7) TMI 237 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT is required to be followed, there exists employer-employee relationship, the players are paid remuneration and therefore, there is no service which is liable to be brought under the tax net for both the periods under the alleged heads - there cannot be liability under BPS and consequently, the assessee s appeals are required to be allowed and the same are allowed. Working of the taxable value where the Revenue sought to include, for the year 2011-12, the prize money - HELD THAT - It is not disputed by the Revenue that the prize money was not given by its franchisee, it s rather the money received from BCCI directly for winning and not towards any services - the prize money could never be included in the taxable value - But, however, since there was no service at all, the above question is just academic. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of services provided by cricket players under Business Support Services (BSS) and Brand Promotion Services (BPS). 2. Employer-employee relationship between players and franchisees. 3. Taxability of prize money received from BCCI. 4. Amendment of cause title due to change in jurisdiction. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Classification of Services under BSS and BPS The primary issue in these appeals is the classification of services provided by cricket players. The Revenue classified services provided up to 30.06.2010 under Business Support Services (BSS) and services provided from 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2011 under Brand Promotion Services (BPS) under Section 65(105)(zzzzq) of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authorities confirmed the entire demand under BSS for the first period and BPS for the second period. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the service tax demand prior to 01.07.2010 under BSS and partially upheld the demand from 01.07.2010 onwards under BPS, denying value-based exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-ST. Issue 2: Employer-Employee Relationship The assessees argued that they were employed as professional cricketers by the franchisees and not providing any service that could be classified under BSS or BPS. The Tribunal, after reviewing the tripartite agreement between BCCI, franchisees, and players, found that the players were indeed recognized as employees of the franchisees. This employer-employee relationship was further supported by the decision in Sourav Ganguly Vs. UOI – 2016 (43) STR 482 (Cal.) and other similar cases. The Tribunal concluded that this relationship precludes the classification of the players' activities as taxable services under BSS or BPS. Issue 3: Taxability of Prize Money The assessees contended that the prize money received from BCCI should not be included in the taxable value as it was not paid by the franchisees and was unrelated to any services rendered. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the prize money was directly received from BCCI for winning and not for any services provided to the franchisees. Hence, it should not be included in the taxable value. However, since the Tribunal held that no taxable service was provided, this issue became academic. Issue 4: Amendment of Cause Title The Tribunal acknowledged the need to amend the cause title in the miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue to reflect the change in jurisdiction from CCE & ST, Chennai to the Commissioner of GST & CE, Chennai South Commissionerate. The applications for change of cause title were allowed accordingly. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the employer-employee relationship between the players and franchisees negates the classification of services under BSS or BPS. Consequently, the assessees' appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The prize money received from BCCI was not to be included in the taxable value, and the cause title was amended to reflect the change in jurisdiction.
|
