Cricketer's Brand Endorsement Charges Not Subject to Additional Service Tax Under "Qui Facit Per Alium" Principle

CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, quashing the service tax demand on brand endorsement charges. The Tribunal found that tax was properly discharged either by the appellant directly or through agents under the legal principle "Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se." Regarding IPL playing fees, the appellant had self-assessed and paid applicable taxes with interest, rendering the demand unsustainable. The Tribunal clarified that match winning bonuses were not taxable as they did not constitute service rendering. CESTAT rejected revenue's allegations of fraud or suppression, finding no evidence of intent to evade payment, thereby invalidating the extended limitation period. Consequently, all penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act were set aside. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X