Tamil Nadu Cricket Association Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that M/s. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not commercial organization and only organizing game of cricket. Therefore, any service rendered to BCCI-IPL by M/s. Tamil Nadu Cricket Association is not in the nature of support of business of BCCI. Accordingly, service tax demand not sustainable.
Facts- The appellant viz., M/s. Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, is registered under the Service Tax Commissionerate for providing various services in the nature of Renting of Immovable Property Service, Advertising Agency and Advertising Space or Time Services. It was noticed that the appellant had received a sum of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crore) from M/s. Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for providing the Chepauk Stadium and assisting in the conduct of the Indian Premier League (IPL) twenty over cricket matches by M/s. India Cements Ltd.
Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellant proposing to demand the Service tax along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the Original Authority vide orders impugned herein confirmed the demands along with interest and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by the above orders, the appellant is now before the Tribunal.
Conclusion- In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I v. M/s. Rajasthan Cricket Association, the demand was raised in respect of the amount received from BCCI. The Original Authority had dropped the demand holding that Service Tax cannot be demanded under the category of Support Service of Business or Commerce for the activity undertaken by M/s. Rajasthan Cricket Association observing that BCCI is not a commercial concern and the arrangement between M/s. Rajasthan Cricket Association and the BCCI cannot be considered as a Support Service of Business or Commerce.
We have no hesitation to conclude that the Department has failed to establish that the appellant has rendered a service falling within the definition of ‘Support Services of Business or Commerce’.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant viz., M/s. Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, is registered under the Service Tax Commissionerate for providing various services in the nature of Renting of Immovable Property Service, Advertising Agency and Advertising Space or Time Services. It was noticed that the appellant had received a sum of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crore) from M/s. Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as ‘BCCI’) for providing the Chepauk Stadium and assisting in the conduct of the Indian Premier League (IPL) twenty over cricket matches by M/s. India Cements Ltd.
2. There are eight franchisee teams in the IPL, which are either owned by corporate houses or individuals. Chennai Super Kings is one of the eight franchisee teams and M/s. India Cements Ltd. is the franchise owner of the Chennai Super Kings team. M/s. India Cements Ltd. held the matches involving Chennai Super Kings and the other seven teams at Chepauk Stadium, Chennai. The appellant herein had provided the stadium and support services for conduct of the IPL cricket matches at Chennai, which, according to the Department, appeared to be rendering infrastructural support service and would fall under ‘Support Services of Business or Commerce’. An amount of Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crore) received by the appellant from BCCI was considered to be received for such business support service. The appellant had not paid Service Tax on such amounts received by them for the different periods.
3. Show Cause Notices dated 19.04.2010, 05.04.2011 and 10.10.2011 were issued to the appellant proposing to demand the Service tax along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the Original Authority vide orders impugned herein confirmed the demands along with interest and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by the above orders, the appellant is now before the Tribunal.
4.1 Learned Counsel, Shri G. Natarajan, appeared and argued on behalf of the appellant. The details of the demand in respect of the different periods is shown in the table below:-
