TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 652
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are intended to support the substantial expenditure incurred in organizing cricket matches and maintaining cricketing infrastructure. Thus, the appellant has not paid service tax on the grants received from BCCI and other amounts received in connection with promotion of cricket related activities. 1.1. A SCN No. 35/2015 bearing C.No. V(15)120/ST-1/Adjn./Commr./15/9585 dated 09.10.2015 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax of 33,54,48,100/- for the period April 2010 to March 2015 ('Impugned period'). The said Notice was adjudicated by the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax, vide Order-in-Original No. 124/PR. COMMR/ST-I/KOL/2016-17 dated 26.12.2016, wherein the Ld. Principal Commissioner has confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs. 33,54,48,100/-, along with interest. An amount of Rs.16,62,99,7271- already paid by the appellant was appropriated against the liability confirmed. No penalty was imposed on the amount of service tax paid and appropriated, and penalty was imposed on the balance amount of service tax confirmed under Section 78 of the Act. 1.2. Aggrieved against the confirmation of the service tax demand along with interest and penalty, the appellant h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rms of Notification No. 30/2010-ST dated 22.06.2010 and thereafter in terms of Clause 10(b) of the Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 3.2. Regarding the demand of service tax under the category of 'Event Management Services', the Appellant submits that event management services under Section 65(40) of the Finance Act presupposes a commercial arrangement where an 'event manager" undertakes planning, promotion, organizing or presentation of an event 'for a client' for consideration. However, in the present case, the Appellant hosts matches in its own right as a full constituent member of BCCI, in furtherance of its own constitutional objects, and there is no contract by which BCCI engages the Appellant as its event manager for a fee. To this effect, the Appellant relies upon the CBIC Circular F. No. B11/1/2002-TRU dated 08.08.2002 and judgment of HT Media Ltd. vs. PC.GST [(2026) 38 Centax 159 (SC). The Appellant also submits that doctrine of mutuality applies because BCCI is an association of its member state associations and the subsidy is distributed inter se among members; in law an association cannot render services to itself and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(c) to Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Act, immovable property' expressly excludes land used for educational, sports, circus, entertainment and parking purposes. Therefore, even if the activity is treated as 'renting of immovable property', no service tax is leviable on stadium usage charges. (2) Without prejudice, under the agreements dated 05-03-2010 and 23-04-2013, the Appellant merely grants a licence to BCCI/KKR to use Eden Gardens stadium for specified IPL matches and is expressly prohibited from organizing the matches, selling tickets or engaging in promotions/merchandising, which functions are exclusively undertaken by BCCI/KKR. The Appellant submits that its obligations under these agreements, i.e., to keep the ground and facilities match ready are incidental to and part of the stadium licence and there is no separate consideration identified or agreed for any independent 'event management' component. 3.5. Regarding the service tax liability on the issue of Free Tickets, the Appellant submits that there is no question of complimentary tickets being additional consideration for event management services arises. It is the submission of the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued demanding service tax under Business Support Services, tax has been confirmed in OIO under head of selling of space under advertisement. Hence, to that extent, OIO has gone beyond SCN and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. In support of this view, the appellant relied on the decision in the case of CC Toyo Engineering India Limited, 2006 (8) TMI 184-SC). 3.7. Stall and License Fees - Rs. 1,04,49,721/- (1) Stalls are licenced only for cricket match days, hence their use is inseparable from use of stadium land for sports/entertainment and falls squarely within the statutory exclusion in Explanation 1(v)(c) of section 65(105)(zzzz). (2) In the case of Jharkhand State Cricket Association (supra), the Tribunal held that the stalls rented out only during cricket matches, are inseparable from the sporting event, and must be treated as part of the bundled service of promoting cricket, which is exempt and it also specifically held that letting of ground for cricket is not renting for "furtherance of business or commerce" and not taxable, even post 01-07-2012 under declared services when ground rent is for playing cricket and not in furtherance of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ii) Nirman Construction vs. CST [2025 (8) TMI 6CESTAT Kol. (2) Manpower supply services The Appellant submits that several significant heads of "manpower" expenditure, which pertains to security and fire services provided by the State Government during matches, which are clearly covered by the negative list entry in Section 66D(a) for services by Government and cannot be recharacterized as taxable "manpower supply" to attract reverse charge liability. Further, the Appellant submits that instead of identifying specific vendors or invoices, the demand is built on tick-marks in trial balances without disclosing which ledgers have been so treated, thereby denying the Appellant a meaningful opportunity to rebut the classification and quantum. (3) Maintenance Services The Appellant submits that Notification No. 30/2012ST did not bring generic "maintenance services" under reverse charge; reverse charge in relation to maintenance arises only where the underlying service is a "works contract" services and only to the extent specified, which presupposes transfer of property and liability to VAT-a foundational fact never alleged or proved in the SCN or OI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... credit relates to ineligible input services. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable. In support of this view, the appellant relied on the decision in the case of CCE Brindavan Beverages (P) Limited, 2007 (5) SCC 388] 3.12. The Appellant submits that the demand confirmed is not sustainable on the ground of limitation also. It is their submission that after taking registration, they were filing returns regularly and disclosing all information in the returns filed. Thus, the department is fully aware of all the activities undertaken by them. Hence, confirmation of the demand of service tax by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. 4. Regarding the appeal filed by the Revenue, the appellant submits that in the discussion and findings it has been held that the appellant was liable to pay service tax amounting to Rs.33,54,48,100/-for the material period, but service tax of Rs. 16,91,48,373/-only has been finally confirmed in the operative part of the order. While doing so the Adjudicating Authority has acknowledged payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 16,62,99,727/-as reflected in ST-3 return submitted by the appellant for the period 2011-12 to 2014-15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground panel right' and 'advertisement charges' for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15 is concerned, the Adjudicating Authority observed that the instant SCN overlaps the period of FY 2010-11 already covered under the previous proceedings under Order dated 09.10.2012 and hence, concluded that the demand against the stated advertisement for the period 2010-11 leads to double taxation. However, no explanation has been provided in the said order-in-original as to why the demand on this issue for the period 01.10.2014 to 31.03.2015 was not sustainable even when the assessee himself has declared certain value against 'selling of space or time slots for advertisements service' in their ST-3 Return for 2014-15 and paid Service Tax according to the declared value. Thus, Revenue contended that the decision to drop the demand of Service Tax of Rs.1,56,25,852/- (Rs.2,15,47,806 Rs.59,21,954) in this respect is not substantiated from the legal point of view and hence, the order to that extent is not legal and proper. 4.3. Regarding the contentions of Revenue as mentioned in paras 4 to 4.2, the Appellant submits that the entire amount received by them was from BCCI, which are t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....short -payment of service tax on various categories of services, we observe that the demand has been confirmed on the amounts mentioned in the books of accounts of the appellant as 'BCCI subsidy'. We find that the subsidies received by them are grants/ subventions made by BCCI to its member associations pursuant to BCCI's own constitutional and charitable obligations. The said grants or subsidies were not paid as quid pro quo for any identified taxable service rendered by the Appellant to BCCI. We observe that there is no service tax liability on the grants received by the appellant from BCCI. In this regard, we rely upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Jharkhand State Cricket Association Vs CCE & ST, (2024) 23 Centax 432 (Tri-Cal), wherein it has been held that the amounts received from BCCI by way of IPL subvention, TV /media rights subsidy etc. are 'in the nature of grants-in-aid for promotion of cricket' and 'not for providing any service to BCCI'. Accordingly, it has been held that there is no service tax liable to be paid on the grants and subsidies received from BCCI. The relevant part of the said decision is reproduced below for read....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....milar views have been expressed in the case of Rolex Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex.[2009 (13) S.T.R 147 (Tri-Bom.). 7.4. By relying on the decisions cited above, we hold that the demands confirmed in the impugned order for the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. No penalty is imposable as suppression of fact with intention to evade the tax is not established in this case. 7.5. Further, we observe that all these activities undertaken by JSCA are for generating revenue with the aim of promoting the game of cricket. All these activities are undertaken during the course of hosting the cricket matches alone. If there are no cricket matches played, then all these services become irrelevant and without having any relation with the cricket matches, these services cannot possibly be rendered. Thus, we observe that all these services are required to be considered as 'bundled services' provided in connection with promoting the game of cricket by JSCA. For the sake of ready reference, the definition of 'bundled services' as provided under Section 66F of the Finance Act, 1994, is reproduced below: - "SECTION 66F. Principles of interpretati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Accordingly, we hold that JSCA are not liable to pay Service Tax for the services rendered by them in connection with promotion of sports. 6.4. We observe that the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. We also find that the appellant has cited the following judgments in support of their argument that the subsidy from BCCI is not liable to service tax: - CCE & ST vs. Saurashtra Cricket Association, (2023) 4 Centax 125 (Tri.-Ahmd) - CCE & ST vs Saurashtra Cricket Association, (2023) 4 Centax 128 (S.C.) 6.5. We find that the ratio of the decisions cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, by relying on the decisions cited supra, we hold that there is no service tax liability on the grants received by the appellant from BCCI, in this case. We find that the other amounts received by the appellant was also in connection with promotion of cricket related activities and hence not liable to service tax. 6.6. We also observe that the 'doctrine of mutuality' applies in this case because BCCI is an association of its member state associations and the....