Irfan Pathan and Yusuf Pathan were the targets of a service tax demand that was dismissed by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

Ramesh Nair, a judge, and Raju, a technical member, made up the two-person bench. They noted that the appellant was required to wear team clothing, which featured the logos and brand names of various sponsors. The appellants weren't offering any services on their own as independent contractors. No services that may be categorised as business support services were provided by the appellants, it cannot be asserted.

The appellants argued that he was not an independent service provider but rather was employed by the respective teams. It is a well-established legal principle that work performed by an employer for and under the employer's direction cannot be referred to as "work performed by an employee."

The department argued that because the appellants are professional cricketers, there is no employer-employee relationship and no contract of employment. In Form 26AS or its tax deduction under the salary heading, no evidence of a salary or other remuneration payment is provided.

According to the CESTAT, the "Indian Premier League Playing Contract" unequivocally shows that the appellant is the one who is first acknowledged as a player. The franchisee's obligation to find players to play professional cricket for it is expressly stipulated in the franchise agreement. There is no doubt that the franchisee hires a person who has acquired the reputation and respect of being a player, not the other way around.

There is no question, the tribunal has noted, that the appellant has been appointed or employed by the relevant franchisee under the "employment" agreement. The "employer-employee" relationship is established by the agreement.

The tribunal dismissed the service tax claims made against the appellants.

International cricket players who are the appellants and assessees had a contract with the proprietors of the cricket team (known as franchisees). According to their contracts for the IPL seasons, they were hired to play cricket for the various franchises. According to the ruling, the payments paid to the appellants fall within the "business support services" service category and are therefore liable to service tax. The department pointed out that the appellant wears team apparel with the logos or marks of numerous sponsors and that they are obligated to take part in franchisee promotions or open events, rendering business support services.

Case Title: Yusufkhan M Pathan Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-ii
Citation: Service Tax Appeal No.127 of 2012