Cricket association wins appeal after correcting mistaken service tax payment on BCCI equipment subsidy

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal of a cricket association regarding service tax demand and penalties. The appellant had mistakenly paid service tax on capital equipment received from BCCI, believing it was additional subsidy. When BCCI later issued a debit note clarifying the equipment was part of the total subsidy, not additional, the appellant took suo moto re-credit of the service tax paid on the equipment. The tribunal found this correction justified, relying on precedent from Saurashtra Cricket Association case, which was upheld by SC. The appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether there is a service provider/service receiver relationship between the appellant and BCCI for the purpose of levying service tax.
2. Whether the appellant correctly adjusted the excess payment of service tax under Rule 6(3) and Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.
3. Applicability of extended period of limitation for issuing the show cause notice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Service Provider/Service Receiver Relationship:

The primary issue revolved around whether the appellant, a cricket association, had a service provider/service receiver relationship with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) that would necessitate the payment of service tax. The appellant argued that the subsidies and assistance received from BCCI, including capital equipment, did not constitute consideration for any service rendered. The appellant relied on a decision by the Learned Commissioner Rajkot and subsequent tribunal decisions, which held that there was no such relationship. The tribunal upheld these views, referencing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision that amounts received by cricket associations from BCCI for participating or hosting tournaments are not subject to service tax. The tribunal concluded that since the equipment received from BCCI was part of the total subsidies and not additional, no service tax was due, and thus, the demand should be dropped.

2. Adjustment of Excess Payment of Service Tax:

The appellant had initially paid service tax on the capital equipment received from BCCI, under the mistaken belief that it was additional assistance. Upon realizing the error, the appellant took suo moto re-credit of the service tax paid. The tribunal analyzed whether this adjustment was permissible under Rule 6(3) and Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, which allow for the adjustment of excess service tax paid. The tribunal found that the appellant had appropriately adjusted the excess payment as credit, supported by relevant case law and a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's actions were in accordance with the rules, and the re-credit was justified.

3. Extended Period of Limitation:

The tribunal considered whether the extended period of limitation was applicable for issuing the show cause notice dated November 15, 2017, concerning re-credit taken in January 2015. The appellant contended that there was no fraud, suppression, or willful misstatement involved, which are prerequisites for invoking the extended period. The tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the facts were not in dispute and there was no evidence of any intent to evade tax. Consequently, the invocation of the extended period was deemed inappropriate.

Conclusion:

The tribunal found no merit in the impugned order demanding service tax and penalties from the appellant. It was determined that the appellant was not liable for service tax on the subsidies and assistance received from BCCI, as there was no service provider/service receiver relationship. The tribunal also upheld the appellant's adjustment of excess service tax paid and ruled against the applicability of the extended period of limitation. The appeal was allowed, and the order was set aside.

---