2008 (12) TMI 153 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial Coaching or Training Service - whether the advance amount collected by the assessee from the students before 1-7-2003 for the services rendered thereafter would be leviable service tax. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of tax of Rs. 8, 80, 053 and imposed penalty along with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the Adjudication Order insofar as the amount collected and course commenced prior to 1-7-2003 and services partly rendered after 1-7-2003 tax was set aside and the amount collected prior to 1-7-2003 and course commenced after 1-7-2003 involving tax of Rs. 71, 297 was upheld. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of setting aside of demand of tax. The assessee filed appeal against the impugned order insofar as the demand of tax of Rs. 71, 297 and penalty Demand of Service Tax on amount collected in advance upheld whereas demand of penalty set-aside.

Summary

Issues:
Whether advance amount collected before the introduction of Service Tax is liable for tax?

Analysis:
The case involved the question of whether the advance amount collected by an educational service provider before the introduction of Service Tax would be subject to tax for services rendered thereafter. The Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the tax demand, penalty, and interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order, upholding the tax on the amount collected before the introduction of Service Tax but set aside the tax on services partly rendered after the introduction. The Revenue appealed against the setting aside of the tax demand, while the assessee appealed against the tax demand and penalty.

Upon review, the Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that the collection of fees in advance, even if received before the introduction of Service Tax, does not absolve the obligation to pay tax on services rendered after the tax imposition. The Tribunal emphasized that the obligation to pay tax arises from the Finance Act, 2003, and the service was brought into the tax net effective from a specified date. The Tribunal clarified that the mere receipt of payment before the tax introduction does not exempt the service provider from paying tax on services provided post-tax implementation.

The Tribunal concurred with the Original Authority's decision to confirm the tax demand on the amount collected before the tax introduction, calculated on a pro rata basis. While upholding the tax demand on merit, the Tribunal agreed with the argument that the case involved a matter of law interpretation, thus ruling out the imposition of penalties. Consequently, the penalties were set aside, and the Original Authority was directed to re-determine the tax demand considering the tax benefit. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly.