9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred against a common adjudication order dated 30.6.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Service Tax for the period 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2008, 1.4.2009 to 22.9.2009 and 23.9.2007 to 17.5.2010, corresponding cricket matches known as IPL twenty 20 (1,2 and 3) tournaments played at different venues in India. 3. Under an agreement dated 14.5.08, GMR Sports Pvt. Ltd. (author company) and the appellant agreed, in accordance with terms and conditions set out therein, that the appellant would sponsor the GMR team called "Delhi Daredevils" in the tournament conducted under auspicious of BCCI. The relevant terms and conditions of this agreement may be noticed; (a) GMR is granted franchisee rights by the BCCI for forming a cricket team to rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted position that if service tax liability exists on the sponsorship service qua the agreement dated 14.05.2008 between the appellant and GMR, the appellant is liable to remit such tax. It is also admitted that the appellant has not remitted service tax. The show cause notice was to the effect that the appellant is liable to service fax under provision of Section 65(105)(zzzn) of the Act, which bring to charge in service or to be provided to anybody corporate or firm, by any person receiving sponsorship, in relation to such sponsorship, in any manner, but excluding services in relation to sponsorship of sports events. 6. The appellant responded to the show cause notice denying the liability to service tax, claiming immunity under the excl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to GMR for sponsoring GMR's team, which in itself is not a sports events; (c) GMR could not be called a sports event; (d) though the appellant claims to have obtain sponsorship rights for being designated as official sponsorship of the team which is a participant in the T-20 tournament, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the exclusionary clause since BCCI-IPL by itself is not a sports events but is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Act, 1975; (e) though the use of the expression "in relation to" indicates the wide sweep and ambit of the exclusionary clause, the expression cannot be extended to cover BCCI/IPL/GMR (f) Delhi Daredevils is not a sporting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n relation to participation of such team in the IPL T-20 cricket tournament. The enumerated bouquet of benefits accruing to the appellant under the agreement such as printing; player's appearances; motorcycle display; merchandise; motorcycle for promotion; and participative rights in prize presentation; championship tournaments; celebrity events; website/blog entitlement; and marketing plans by GMR, clearly establish that the sponsorship is of the GMR owned Delhi Daredevils team in relation to its participation in the T-20 tournament. 11. The sponsorship agreement is in our considered view a clear commercial transaction, the underlying purpose being the assumption that since BCCI-IPL-T-20 matches generate huge public viewership, either ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e agreement, overlooking the terms and conditions of the agreement, constitutes a fatal infirmity of analysis, which invalidates the adjudication order. 13. The relevant clauses of the relevant statutory provision [Section 65 (105) (zzzn)] (as it stood at the relevant time) reads "Taxable service" means any service provided or to be provided" to any body corporate or firm, by any person receiving sponsorship, in relation to such sponsorship, in any manner, but does not include services in relation to sponsorship of sports events. Sponsorship is defined in Section 65(99a) of the Act and its essential ingredients are defined to include naming the evens after the sponsor, display the sponsor company logo or trade name, giving the sponsor excl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... team and not of sport events and that the amounts paid by the appellant to GMR fall outside the exclusionary clause of the provision. This contention is stated to be rejected. Under Article 265 of the Constitution no tax could be levied without legislative authority. A legislative provision is thus the sine qua non for a legitimate levy of tax. The relevant legislative provision must thus receive a strict construction. A true and fair construction of the relevant legislative provision, in accordance with settled and applicable principles of statutory interpretation is therefore the non derogable obligation of an executor/ interpretator of legislation. It is also settled principle of statutory interpretation that where the verbal formula of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
