2019 (5) TMI 1489 - AT - Service Tax

Franchise services - promotion or marketing of the logo/brand/marks of the franchisee - recovery of service tax - HELD THAT - In similar circumstances Hon ble Kolkata High Court in the case of SOURAV GANGULY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS 2016 (7) TMI 237 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT has held that service tax was not payable by Shri Sourav Ganguly - Tribunal in the case of Shri Karan Sharma Vs Commissioner of Service Tax-Meerut-I 2018 (4) TMI 111 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD has held that service tax was not payable by the appellant in the said case law placed in similar circumstances relying on the ruling by Hon ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Shri Sourav Ganguly. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the extended period for demand was applicable in the case.
2. Whether the service tax liability of the professional cricket player is sustainable.
3. Whether the appeal filed by revenue is sustainable.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the issue of the extended period for demand in the context of service tax recovery from a professional cricket player. The Tribunal noted that the revenue initiated proceedings against the player for allegedly promoting the franchisee by wearing official cricket clothing and displaying the franchisee's marks, akin to marketing the franchisee's logo/brand. The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the extended period for demand was not invokable, resulting in the discharge of tax liability and no imposable penalty on the appellant. The revenue contended that the extended period was applicable. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, concluding that the extended period was not applicable in this case.

2. The judgment further addressed the sustainability of the service tax liability on the professional cricket player. The respondent's counsel argued that since the service tax was not payable, relying on a ruling by the Kolkata High Court in a similar case involving Shri Sourav Ganguly, the appeal by the revenue was not sustainable. The counsel also referenced a decision by the Tribunal in another case with similar circumstances, where service tax was deemed not payable based on the Kolkata High Court's ruling. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the appeal filed by the revenue was not sustainable, affirming that the service tax liability on the professional cricket player was not valid.

3. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the revenue, based on the findings that the extended period for demand was not applicable, and the service tax liability on the professional cricket player was not sustainable. The judgment concluded with the rejection of the revenue's appeal, bringing closure to the legal dispute in favor of the appellant.