Order Date – 20 January 2023

Yusufkhan M Pathan Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-ii

Facts –

• The appellant, Yusufkhan M Pathan and Irfankhan Pathan are international cricket players and they had entered into contract with the cricket team owners whereby they were employed/ engaged to play cricket for the respective teams in terms of the contracts for IPL seasons.
• The Appellants has been held to be liable to service tax under the service category of “Business Support Service”.
• Appellant wear the team clothing which bears the brands/ marks of various sponsors and they are also required to participate in promotional /public events of the franchisee thus they are providing Business Support Service.

Issue –

• Whether the Appellant is liable to Service tax under Business Support Service?

Order –

• The Tribunal found that though in the impugned order the appellants were made liable to pay service tax under the business support service but as, no specific entry in definition of “Business Support service” has been shown to be applicable to levy service tax. 
• Tribunal observed that the appellants are not promoting any particular brand or product or service and also not taking part in any business activity of promoting the sale of any product or service of any entity.
• Further, on perusal of the agreement title “Indian Premiere League Playing Contract” it clearly emerges that it is the appellant who is recognized as player first. Clause -2 of this agreement even makes it all the more clear that the franchisee is engaging players as professional cricketer who shall be employed by the franchisee. From this, it is abundantly clear that a person who has earned the reputation and recognition as a player is employed by the franchisee and it is not the other way round.
• Hence, the Tribunal held that the definition of “Business Support Service” does not specifically cover the activity done by Appellant.
• The appeal is allowed.