2013 (10) TMI 637 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial coaching or training services in relation to road transport service - The applicants were imparting training to the drivers and conductors after recruitment and charges from the trainees Held that - The applicant was a transport corporation providing training to their employees, drivers and conductors after appointment which was part of their job - The charges were in the nature of the expenses between the employer and the employee and no service tax was leviable - The transport corporation was not an institute or establishment for providing commercial training or coaching - Whether the transport corporation was an institute or an establishment providing commercial training to their employees which will be looked into at the time of appeal hearing at length. Relying upon Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax 2013 (9) TMI 866 - DELHI HIGH COURT - the demand was raised on the basis of insertion of Explanation to Section 65 (105) (zzc) by Finance Act, 2010, which had retrospective effect from 1.7.2003 - The applicant is a State Government undertaking and prima facie, there was no rational to invoke extended period of limitation - the applicant is incurring huge loss as evident from the balance sheet - it was a fit case for waiver of predeposit of entire amount of tax along with interest and penalty and stay its recovery during the pendency of the appeal Stay Granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether training charges collected by a State Government undertaking providing road transport service are subject to tax liability.
2. Whether the demand of tax is barred by limitation.
3. Whether the transport corporation falls under the definition of an establishment providing commercial training.
4. Whether the applicant is eligible for a waiver of pre-deposit of tax, interest, and penalty during the pendency of the appeal.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a State Government undertaking providing road transport services that imparted training to drivers and conductors after recruitment, charging fees from trainees. The issue was whether these training charges were subject to tax liability. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of tax. The appellant argued that the charges were part of the job and no service tax was applicable, citing precedents and financial hardship. The Tribunal observed that the demand was based on a retrospective amendment and found no rationale to invoke extended limitation period due to the entity being a State Government undertaking incurring substantial losses. Citing a Delhi High Court case, the Tribunal allowed the stay application, waiving the pre-deposit of the entire amount.

2. The appellant contended that the demand of tax was barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted the retrospective effect of the amendment and the entity being a State Government undertaking. Considering the financial hardship and precedents, the Tribunal allowed the waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery during the appeal's pendency.

3. The question arose whether the transport corporation could be classified as an establishment providing commercial training. The Tribunal acknowledged the contentious nature of the issue and decided to delve deeper during the appeal hearing. However, based on the retrospective amendment and the entity's status as a State Government undertaking, the Tribunal found no grounds to invoke extended limitation. Considering the financial position of the corporation and relevant case law, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery during the appeal process.

4. Lastly, the issue of whether the appellant was eligible for a waiver of pre-deposit of tax, interest, and penalty during the appeal was addressed. The Tribunal, after considering submissions, financial hardship, and relevant case law, deemed it a fit case for the waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of the entire amount during the appeal's pendency, aligning with the decision in a Delhi High Court case.