Professional cricketer's IPL contract amounts not subject to service tax as employment-based, not service provision

CESTAT Chennai held that amounts received by a professional cricketer from India Cements Ltd. under IPL playing contract were not subject to service tax as brand promotional activities. The tribunal determined the contract was employment-based, not service provision, as the player was under control and supervision of the franchisee, restricted from playing for other teams, received fixed remuneration, and was primarily hired to play cricket rather than conduct promotional activities. The promotional activities were incidental to the dominant cricket-playing obligation. Following precedents in similar cases, the tribunal set aside the service tax demand and allowed the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Nature of the Contract between the appellant and M/s. India Cements Ltd (M/s. ICL)
2. Applicability of Service Tax on amounts received by the appellant under the IPL Playing Contract

Summary:

1. Nature of the Contract between the appellant and M/s. India Cements Ltd (M/s. ICL):

The appellant, a cricketer for the Chennai Super Kings, entered into an agreement with M/s. ICL and BCCI. The agreement included terms that indicated an employer-employee relationship, such as the appellant being under the control and supervision of M/s. ICL, being restricted from playing for other teams, and being required to undergo medical examinations and attend training. The remuneration was fixed and did not vary based on the number of promotional activities or advertisements. The Tribunal held that the contract was in the nature of an employment contract, with the appellant being hired primarily to play cricket, and the promotional activities being ancillary.

2. Applicability of Service Tax on amounts received by the appellant under the IPL Playing Contract:

The department argued that the amounts received by the appellant were for brand promotion services and thus subject to service tax under Section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant's main obligation was to play cricket, and the promotional activities were secondary. The fixed remuneration and the control exercised by M/s. ICL over the appellant indicated an employer-employee relationship. Previous decisions in similar cases, such as those involving Yusufkhan Pathan and Irfankhan Pathan, supported this view. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the payments were not for brand promotion services but were part of the employment contract, and thus, the demand for service tax could not be sustained.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order demanding service tax, ruling that the contract was an employment contract and the amounts received were not for brand promotion services. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.

---