TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur opinion, the detailed discussion of all the issues that were presented can be postponed to the final stage and at this stage we would restrict ourselves to discuss necessary details essential to decide whether requirement of pre-deposit is to be waived and stay is to be granted or not. 2. Service tax of Rs. 19,22,47,212/- with interest has been demanded during the period from April 2006 to March 2011 on the ground that the appellant, M/s. Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) has rendered even management service. An amount of Rs. 2,13,35,492/- has been demanded on the ground that appellant has to pay service tax for rendering club or association service. Besides demanding service tax with interest, penalties under Sections 77 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... demand on cricket activity is illegal. c. The Appellant is not an "event manager" or "event management company" but a Cricket governing body in the State of Karnataka which is affiliated to BCCI. Its structure, infrastructure, assets, properties and composition of membership are unusual and unique to cricket associations and never part of an event management concern. This has been overlooked by the Respondent. d. The revenue streams and line-items of expenditure demonstrate the conduct of cricket tournaments which is evident from the narrative in the impugned order and Annexures thereto. The same are never part of the revenue and expenditure of an event manager, which defeats the findings in the order. e. The manner of conduct of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring investigation and adjudication. It is submitted that even advances/deposits/liabilities have been included as value of taxable service, which is patently absurd and vitiates the impugned order. 5. It was also submitted and it was shown to us during the hearing that in spite of the finding that demand of Rs. 79,01,866/- attributable to chamber revenue has to be deducted, while confirming the demand, this was totally ignored. It was also submitted that even the ground rent for conducting cricket match in the stadium has also been included in the event management and this was totally wrong classification. It was also submitted that the non-consideration of the provisions of the Section 65A or classification of bundled services shows th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....event and does not provide any assistance to BCCI in conducting the events viz. cricket matches. He also submits that what is being levied to tax by the Revenue in this case is the event itself i.e. the cricket match conducted by KSCA and not the cost of managing the event. Once a match allotted to the KSCA by BCCI, the entire activity relating to the match is the responsibility of the KSCA and KSCA actually conducts the event and it does not conduct the event for the benefit of BCCI. The amounts received by the appellant have been indicated under the following heads viz. receipt for cricketing activities, TV subvention money, sponsorship subsidy and other receipts, match fees and other receipts, hire charges and rental. Hire charges and re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case made out is that KSCA provided event management service to BCCI. Prima facie, we find that there is a contradiction in the ultimate finding and the proposal in the show-cause notice. What the show-cause notice proposed or concluded was that activity was undertaken on behalf of BCCI. How could a view that event management service has been provided by KSCA to BCCI can be taken is a question which would require much more detailed consideration. 12. Even though an offer was made to the learned counsel in view of his submissions that many of the submissions made by them have been simply ignored, the learned counsel declined to accept the offer and submitted that matter may be finally decided in due course. In fact during the course of h....