AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt was playing as professional cricket player with M/S Royal Challenger Bangalore in the Indian Premier League and received consideration of Rs. 20 la-khs for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.12.2009 and another consideration of Rs. 20 lakhs for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.12.2010. Revenue entertained a view that the appellant was promoting activities of the franchisee by wearing franchisee's official cricket clothing, displaying franchisee's mark/ logo etc. which was nothing but akin to promotion or marketing of the logo/ brands/ marks of the franchisee/ sponsor, It further appeared to revenue that services/ promotional activities provided by appellant during the said IPL matches was covered under the category of 'Business....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imself to business promotional activities. Thus, he provided taxable service when he wore apparel provided by the franchisee that was embossed with commercial endorsements or when he participated in endorsement event. The Department admits that the fee charged for playing the matches will fall outside the purview of taxable service. However, the Department contends that the petitioner has been paid composite fee for playing matches and for participating in promotional activities but the component of promotional activities could not be segregated for charging service tax. Accordingly, service tax is chargeable on the composite amount. For this contention, the Department relied on the letter dated 26 July, 2010 issued by the Central Board of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provide fee to the petitioner. The petitioner was under full control of the franchisee and had to act in the manner instructed by the franchisee. The apparel that he had to wear was team clothing and the same could not exhibit any badge, logo, mark, trade name, etc. The petitioner was not providing any service as an independent individual worker. His status was that of an employee rather than an independent worker or contractor or consultant. In my opinion, it cannot be said that the petitioner was rendering any service which could be classified as business support service. He was simply a purchased member of a team serving and performing under KKR and was not providing any service to KKR as an individual. In this regard, I fully endorse a....