2025 (5) TMI 1916 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - hostel charges/fee collected from the students on account of uses of hostels provided by the appellant to such students while imparting the education to them - HELD THAT - This Tribunal while adjudication the Modi Education Foundation Case 2023 (5) TMI 609 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has dealt with the facts with respect to the boarding school receiving hostel fees from the students in addition to the tuition fees and the other charges. The perusal reveals that the issues are identical in the said decision. While adjudication this Tribunal has considered the another issue as to whether the two services namely hostel services and the education services are naturally bundled in the ordinary court of the business and while doing so it has been held that hostel service and education services are naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business and it is the education service that gives the essential character to such bundle. Education services by way of pre-school education and education up to higher secondary school or equivalent are enumerated in the negative list of services enumerated in Section 66D of the Finance Act. Thus it cannot be subjected to levy of service tax. The Hon ble Apex Court also in the case titled as Assam State Tax Book Production and Publication Corporation vs. CIT 2009 (10) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT has held that providing hostel facility to people is also an activity incidental to imparting the education. Conclusion - The demand of service tax on hostel fees collected by the appellant is unsustainable. Appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this appeal are:

- Whether the hostel fees collected by an educational institution from students constitute a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994, specifically under service tax provisions applicable during the period 01.04.2013 to 10.07.2014.

- Whether the activity of providing hostel accommodation by an educational institution is a standalone taxable service or is naturally bundled with education services such that the dominant character of the bundled service determines taxability.

- Whether education services, including those provided by boarding schools, fall within the negative list of services under Section 66D(1)(m) of the Finance Act, 1994, thereby exempting such services from service tax.

- The applicability of exemption notifications and relevant judicial precedents on the taxability of hostel services provided by educational institutions.

- The correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing service tax demand on hostel fees, in light of the above considerations.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Taxability of Hostel Fees Collected by Educational Institutions

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 66D(1)(m) of the Finance Act, 1994, provides a negative list of services exempt from service tax, including services by way of pre-school education and education up to higher secondary school or equivalent. Section 66F defines 'bundled services' and provides that taxability depends on the service giving the essential character to the bundle. The CBIC Education Guide (dated 20-6-2012) and subsequent CBEC Press Release (dated 13-7-2017) clarify that services provided by educational institutions, including lodging/boarding in hostels, are exempt when inseparable from education services. The Supreme Court in Assam State Tax Book Production and Publication Corporation vs. CIT (2009) recognized hostel facilities as incidental to education.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether hostel services are standalone taxable services or naturally bundled with education services. It relied on the principle that if services are naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business, the dominant service determines taxability. Hostel services provided by a boarding school cannot be availed without education services, and day scholars who do not receive hostel services are not charged hostel fees, establishing a nexus between the two services.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant is a school affiliated with CBSE, providing education and associated facilities such as hostel accommodation. Hostel fees were collected only from students opting for boarding, not from day scholars. The appellant did not pay service tax on hostel fees, contending that these services are exempt under the negative list.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied Section 66F and the CBIC guidelines to conclude that hostel services and education services are naturally bundled, with education services giving the essential character. Since education services up to higher secondary level are in the negative list under Section 66D(1)(m), the entire bundled service, including hostel accommodation, is exempt from service tax.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department relied on the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Customs Import, Mumbai vs. M/s Dilip Kumar & Company (2018) emphasizing strict interpretation of exemption notifications and argued that ambiguity should be resolved against the assessee. The Tribunal noted this but found that the issue was squarely covered by binding precedents favoring the appellant. The Department conceded that the precedents relied upon were applicable.

Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the demand of service tax on hostel fees was not sustainable as the services are naturally bundled with education services which are exempt under the negative list. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) imposing service tax was set aside.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Bundled Services and Dominant Character Principle

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 66F of the Finance Act defines 'bundled services' and mandates that taxability is determined by the service which imparts the essential character to the bundle. The CBIC Education Guide and judicial decisions emphasize that where education and hostel services are inseparable, the dominant nature of education services leads to exemption.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal reiterated that hostel accommodation cannot be provided independently of education services in a boarding school context. The nexus between education and hostel services means they are naturally bundled. The essential character of the bundle is education, which is exempt under the negative list.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant charged hostel fees only from boarding students, not from day scholars, confirming the inseparability of the services. The Tribunal relied on the CBIC Education Guide's paragraph 4.12.4 and the CBEC Press Release of 2017 to support this interpretation.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the dominant character test to the facts and concluded that the bundled service is exempt from service tax as the dominant service is education, which is covered under the negative list.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued for a strict interpretation of exemption notifications but did not dispute the factual nexus between education and hostel services. The Tribunal found no merit in the Department's argument in light of the binding precedents and administrative clarifications.

Conclusions: The Tribunal confirmed that the dominant character principle exempts the bundled service from service tax liability.

Issue 3: Applicability of Exemption Notifications and Precedents

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The exemption notification dated 20-6-2012 (Serial No. 18) and judicial precedents including Modi Education Foundation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences vs. Principal ADG, Bengaluru Zonal Unit were considered. The Supreme Court's ruling in Assam State Tax Book Production and Publication Corporation vs. CIT was also relied upon.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the issue has been conclusively decided in favor of educational institutions providing hostel facilities as incidental to education services. The appellant's reliance on these precedents was accepted as controlling authority.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that no distinguishing facts were present in the current appeal to deviate from the precedents. The Department conceded the applicability of these decisions.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the precedents directly to the facts of the case and found that the appellant's services fall within the exemption scope.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department's reliance on strict interpretation principles was addressed but found insufficient to override binding precedents and administrative clarifications.

Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on the established legal position.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The hostel services and education services provided by a boarding school are naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business, and the education service is the service which gives the essential character to such bundle."

"Section 66D of the Finance Act provides for the negative list of services and it includes service by way of pre-school education and education up to higher secondary school or equivalent. Thus, education service would be covered within the purview of negative list contained in Section 66D of the Finance Act. It would, therefore, not be taxable."

"Boarding schools provide service of education coupled with other services like providing dwelling units for residence and food. This may be a case of bundled services if the charges for education and lodging and boarding are inseparable. Their taxability will be determined in terms of the principles laid down in section 66F of the Act."

"Services of lodging/boarding in hostels provided by such educational institutions which are providing pre-school education and education up to higher secondary school or equivalent or education leading to a qualification recognised by law, are fully exempt from GST."

"Providing hostel facility to people is also an activity incidental to imparting the education."

The Tribunal conclusively held that the demand of service tax on hostel fees collected by the appellant was unsustainable and set aside the order imposing such demand, thereby allowing the appeal.