TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ghts as an associate sponsor for the Indian Premium League Season 3 2010 (IPL) which was conducted from 12.03.2010 to 25.04.2010. After perusal of the terms and conditions of the memorandum of understanding it was noticed by the department that appellant has paid 2. Sponsorship Services was notified as a taxable service vide Notification No. 15/2006-S.T., dated 24.04.2006 w.e.f. 1-5-2006. The Sponsorship Services was defined under Section 65 (99) (a) of Finance Act, 1994, as under: "Sponsorship" includes naming an event after the sponsor, displaying the sponsor's company logo or trading name, giving the sponsor exclusive or priority booking rights, sponsoring prizes or trophies for competition; but does not include any financial or other support in the form of donations or gifts, given by the donors subject to the condition that the service provider is under no obligation to provide anything in return to such donors. 2.1 Further, vide letter Dy. No. 42/Comm(ST)/2008 dated 26.07.2010 issued by the Commissioner (Service Tax), CBEC, New delhi on the subject matter 'Service Tax issues in respect of the Indian Premium League (IPL)' it was further clarified that; " Sponsorship Servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PL Season 3 (2010) which was conducted from 12.3.2010 to 25.04.2010. 5. M/s. JIPL owns franchise for Rajasthan Royals which is the Jaipur Team of the Indian Premium League formed by the BCCI for 2020 Cricket tournament. All rights of the team Rajasthan Royals are exclusively owned by M/s. JIPL or have otherwise being license for used to M/s. JIPL. The MOU executed was subjected to the Rules / Regulations of IPL / BCCI / ICC. Any activity of marketing during the period of the agreement had to be in accordance to the terms of MOU and the rules and regulations of IPL / BCCI and ICC. 6. Section 65 (105)(zzzn) specifically exclude services in relation to sponsorship of sports events. From the bare perusal of the definition of taxable service it can be understood that services 'in relation to sponsorship of sports events' have been consciously excluded from the scope of taxable services. It is pertinent to note that Finance Act, 2010 substituted Section 65 (105)(zzzn) so as to withdraw the exclusion clause of sports events with effect from 01.07.2010. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel that in the present case, the entire demand is for the period prior to 01.07.2010 and therefore t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2008, 01.04.2009 to 22.09.2009 and 23.09.2007 to 17.05.2010, corresponding cricket matches known as IPL twenty 20 (1,2 and 3) tournaments played at different venues in India. 3. Under an agreement dated 14.05.2008, GMR sports Pvt. Ltd. (author company) and the appellant agreed, in accordance with terms and conditions ser out herein, that the appellant would sponsor the GMR team called "Delhi Daredevils" in the tournament conducted under auspicious of BCCI. The relevant terms and conditions of this agreement may be noticed; (a) GMR is granted franchisee rights by the BBCI for forming a cricket team to represent State of Delhi in a T-2- Cricket Tournament (League) called "DLF - IPL - 20" organized by BCCI. (b) In consideration of rights and privileges (specified in the agreement) granted by the appellant by GMR, the appellant agree to sponsor the GMR team called "Delhi Daredevils" in the league tournament. (c) Agreement would be in force for three years from 01.04.2008 or till earlier determination in according with agreement. (d) GMR appoints the appellant as an official team sponsor of the cricket team called "Delhi Daredevils" for the dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R or to sponsor BCCI/IPL without reference to the T-20 fixtures. We are not persuaded by any material on record that a huge amount of Rs. 4,80,00,000/- (for three years) was expended by appellant for deriving any commercial benefit out of its association with either GMR or BCCI/ IPL alone. We are also not persuaded to infer that GMR and/ or BCCI -IPL by themselves and unrelated to the T-20 cricket tournament/ event would have any audience/ viewership interest or footfall as to have any commercial utility whatsoever to the appellant. The sponsorship agreement is thus for sponsoring the T-20 sports event and not for sponsoring the owner of the Delhi Daredevils owner or the BCCI - IPL. 14. Shri Amresh Jain, Id. DR contents on behalf of Revenue that sponsorship was only of a team and not of sport events and that the amounts paid by the appellant to GMR fall outside the exclusion clause of the provision. This contention is stated to be rejected. Under Article 265 of the Constitution no tax could be levied without legislative authority. A legislative provision is thus the sine qua non for a legitimate levy of tax. The relevant legislative provision must thus receive a strict constructi....