Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 800 - AT - Service TaxLevy of Service Tax - commercial training or coaching service - revenue sharing agreement or not - MAAC was rendering ‘franchise’ service to the appellant, which was an independent transaction - period of dispute involves in the two show cause notices dated 15.04.2011 and 07.10.2011 is from 2009-10 and 2010-11 - HELD THAT:- The said issue stands covered in favour of the appellant in the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of the appellant itself in M/S. SAMADHAN SYSTEMS (P) LTD. VERSUS C.C.E., JAIPUR-I [2018 (2) TMI 1049 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. The decision relates to an earlier period from 2004-05 to 2008-09, while the dispute in the present appeal is from April 2009 to March 2011 and holds that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax under the category of ‘commercial training or coaching’ service, particularly when tax on such service had been discharged by MAAC. This apart, a conjoint reading of the Agreement, coupled with the intent of the parties, shows that it was to give effect to an arrangement which is in the nature of co-venture where two parties work for a common purpose, i.e., rendering commercial training/coaching service to the students. Such an agreement has been held to be in the nature of a revenue sharing arrangement by a Division Bench of the Tribunal in SHRI NIRAJ PRASAD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, KANPUR [2019 (11) TMI 436 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD]. Service tax could not have been levied upon the appellant - the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained and is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|