The court has directed the BCCI and IPL to provide detailed information about the income generated from T-20 matches that were played in Maharashtra.
Bombay high court on Thursday asked whether the Indian Premier League (IPL) is governed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and if it is a profit-making outfit.
A division bench of justice PB Majmudar and justice RG Ketkar has sought to know whether IPL was a “profiteering” venture. The court has directed the BCCI and IPL to provide detailed information about the income generated from T-20 matches that were played in Maharashtra.
The court was hearing a PIL filed by Shiv Sena MLA Subhash Desai. The PIL seeks the state to collect entertainment tax from the tournament.
The court has asked the IPL to maintain accounts of the remaining matches to be played in the state. While the first semi-final has already been played on Wednesday, the second semi-final is on Thursday. Two more matches, the third-place decider and the final, are also to be played in the state.
The court has directed the BCCI and the IPL to furnish copies of their constitutions and memorandum of articles when the case comes up for hearing on April 26.
The state government has also been directed to make a statement on whether they had taken a decision to levy entertainment tax on the IPL matches or not. “If we find that such a decision was actually taken, the officers instructing you (government pleader) will be in trouble,” remarked the judges.
The remark came after government pleader Dhairyasheel Nalavade informed the court that the state cabinet had only discussed about implying entertainment tax on the matches. “No such decision has been taken so far,” Nalavade told the court.
The court has directed the BCCI and IPL to answer whether IPL is a profiteering activity, the manner in which IPL and BCCI are functioning in organising T20 matches as well as how BCCI controls the IPL.
Desai’s petition alleges that the government decided to levy tax on IPL at a cabinet meeting in January, but decision was not implemented.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}