Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2021 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 514 - CESTAT ALLAHABADLevy of service tax - Commercial Coaching or Training Services - it appeared to Revenue that the appellants are evading payment of service tax as they are conducting training courses and providing certificates to the students without the approval of either University Grants Commission (UGC in short) or by All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), therefore, are not recognised by law - period of dispute April, 2009 to 2015-16 (upto March, 2016) - time limitation. W.e.f. 01.07.2012 - HELD THAT:- The coaching or training leading to grant of a certificate or diploma or Degree or any educational qualification, which is recognised by any law for the time being in force, have been kept out of the scope of service tax, as defined under Section 65(105) (zzc), upto the period 30.06.2012 vide Notification No. 10/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 read with Notification No. 33/2011-ST dated 25.04.2011 - Period 01.04.2009 to 26.02.2010 - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority has misconceived the scope of taxable and /or chargeability to tax and have erred in coining his own definition of the term “vocational training and coaching” which is not provided in the statute. The refusal to grant exemption to the appellant, inspite of admission by the learned Commissioner - that appellants are providing education/ vocational training, but the conclusion that such courses shall not qualify as vocational course due to the quantum of fee charged (high). We further find that the learned Commissioner has rejected the benefit of exemption and/or exclusion provided in the statute from tax, by observing that courses provided by the appellants are professional and technical in nature as well as glamorous - such interpretation is wholly misconceived. The Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate that there is no such bar (with respect to the quantum of fee), in the statute for grant of exemption. Further, the list of services (enumerated in Circular No. 59/8/2003) being in the nature of vocational courses is by way of example only. Further, the list ends with the word etcetera/etc., the conscious use of the word ‘etc.’ indicates the wide scope of the exemption notification. Such observation of the learned Commissioner are by way of conjecture and surmises, have no legal sanctity - the ‘Commercial training/ education/ coaching’ provided by the appellants imparts skills to the students/ trainees to enable them to seek employment or undertake self-employment directly upon completion of the course. Period 27.02.2010 to 30.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- The learned Commissioner have admitted in the show cause notice itself, that MU is sending their students for training/ education with respect to various courses like Mass Communication, acting, etc. to the campus of the appellants. We further find that there is no such requirement as to affiliation from a University. The only requirement is, that the course being taught should be part of a curriculum, leading to grant of degree / diploma, recognised by law. Admittedly, the issue of degree/ diploma by the respective Universities have not been found to be fraudulent - admitted fact is that the appellant’s institutions are run by a ‘Charitable Institute’ namely ‘Asian School of Film and TV’, which is recognised and registered under Section 12A/ 12AA of the Income Tax Act. Right from beginning till 30.06.2017 the activity of the appellant in providing educational /vocational training to their students, is as per the pre defined curriculum in collaboration with the respective University, is exempt throughout,as they have provided education and training followed by issue of certificate of degree/ diploma which is recognised by law for the time being in force. Further, we find that on completion of the courses conducted by the appellants, the students/ trainees have either received employment and/or are competent to be self employed. The appellants is not liable to service tax. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant(s) were under bonafide belief that their activity is not liable to service tax and further we find that the appellants have maintained proper record of their activity and have been making compliance with various laws including Income Tax Act, as a charitable organisation. The books of accounts have been regularly audited and have been filed with various Government Authorities - Admittedly, the only allegation made in the show cause notice for invoking the extended period of limitation is that the appellants have failed to take registration, assess their tax liability, pay the tax, file the returns etc. Admittedly, the whole demand is based on data and information supplied by the appellant as has been demanded by the Revenue. Accordingly, we hold that extended period of limitation is not attracted and the show cause notice(s) are bad for invocation of extended period of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|