Nokia Not Liable To Pay Service Tax On Sponsoring Team Participating In IPL T-20 Cricket Tournament: CESTAT

Date:

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Nokia is not liable to pay service tax on sponsoring teams participating in IPL T-20 Cricket Tournament.

The bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial  Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that the sponsorship agreement was within the exclusionary clause, which excludes sponsorship services in relation to sports events under the provisions of section 65 (105)(zzzn) of the Finance Act, 2006.

Background

The respondent/assessee, Nokia India Pvt Ltd is registered with the Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi for the taxable services namely, Sponsorship Service, Business Support Services, Development and Supply of Content Services, Information Technology and Software Services, Consulting Engineer, Manpower Recruitment Agency, Online Information and Data access and retrieval Services, Commercial Training & Coaching, Business Auxiliary Services. 

Information was received that the respondent had entered into an agreement with M/s. Knight Riders Sports Pvt Ltd towards receiving the sponsorship rights of the Kolkata Knight Riders team, one of the eight teams participating in the DLF- IPL T-20 Cricket Tournament. 

Kolkata Knight Riders had been granted franchisee rights by the Board of Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) for forming the cricket team to represent the State of Bengal in the T-20 tournament. 

The respondent/department had paid Rs.15 crores to Kolkata Knight Riders for receiving the sponsorship rights of the said team. The Department was of the view that the said amount was taxable under the category ‘sponsorship services’. 

The adjudicating authority considered the issue whether the noticee is liable to pay service tax under the category of sponsorship services for sponsoring a team participating in the IPL T-20 Cricket Tournament and whether the IPL T-20 Cricket Tournament can be termed as “sports event” in terms of the definition of taxable service, i.e. sponsorship services under section 65 (105) (zzzn) of the Finance Act, 1994. 

After referring to the various provisions of the Act and the service tax rules, the adjudicating authority noticed that the issue of levy of Service Tax Rules on sponsorship services has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Hero Motocorp Limited. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax.

In the case of M/s. Hero Motocorp Limited. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax it was held that since the sponsorship agreement, in our considered view, falls within the exclusionary clause i.e. the clause which excludes sponsorship services in relation to sports events, the appellant is clearly immune to the charge of service tax. The demand is also devoid of any merit and is hence liable to be set aside.

Read More: Petition Challenging Tariff Notifications Imposing Fixed Rate Of Tariff On Imports Of Gold Findings: Telangana High Court Stays Custom Duty Demand 

Conclusion

The tribunal dismissed the department’s appeal and upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority.

Case Details

Case Title:  Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi Versus M/s. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.

Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 53427 of 2014

Date: 08.11.2024

Counsel For Appellant: Rajeev Kapoor

Counsel For Respondent: Deepak Thacker

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at JurisHour. She has 5+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies like LiveLaw & Taxscan.

Share post:

Popular

More like this
Related

Delhi High Court Quashed Reassessment Notice Beyond 10 Years Block Period 

The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment notice...

Analysis Of Canon Judgement Review By Supreme Court

The analysis of Canon Judgement review by Supreme Court...