Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2022 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 49 - HC - GSTExemption from GST or not - AAAR denined the benefit of exemption - services provided by the petitioner to school/educational organization in relation to ASSET examination - educational institution relating to conduct of examination by such institution or not - Entry Serial No.66 of the Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by the Notification No.02/2018- Central Tax (Rate) dated 25.01.2018 - HELD THAT:- The term ‘education’ has not been defined. The Supreme Court, in the case of SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MYSORE [1975 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], has explained the term ‘education’ as a process of training and developing knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by formal schooling. The word ‘education’ cannot be given a natural meaning by restricting it to the actual imparting of education to the students but should be given a wider meaning which would take within its sweep all the matters relating to imparting and controlling education. Examination is an essential component of education as it is one of the major means to assess and evaluate the skills of a candidate and the knowledge, be it a school test, university examination, professional entrance examination or any other examination. When the appellate authority says that the schools are not conducting the ASSET, or rather, the schools are facilitating the writ-applicant to conduct the ASSET, for which the schools get some remuneration towards the administration cost, it is thereby trying to erroneously convey that instead of the writ-applicant providing services to the schools, the schools are providing services to the writ-applicant, for which the schools receive ‘administration cost’ - Indisputably, the question papers are set by the writ-applicant and the answers given by the students are assessed by the writ-applicant and the result of the ASSET is also prepared by the writ-applicant. The basic nature of the ASSET service is an examination to be conducted by the Educational Institution (School) but outsourced to the Educational Initiatives (EI). The observations made by the AAR in para 21.1 of its order clinches the issue. It is now well-settled that even in tax statutes, an exemption provision should be liberally construed in accordance with the object sought to be achieved if such provision is to grant incentive for promoting education or otherwise has some beneficial reason behind it. The exemption notification should be given a literal meaning - the exemption notification must be construed having regard to the purpose and object it seeks to achieve. The notification in the case on hand should be read as a whole. There need not be any further debate on the question, whether the services provided by the writ-applicant to the schools, which are educational institutions, fall within the meaning of the aforesaid notifications. The services, definitely fall within the two notifications referred. Writ application allowed.
|