2017 (5) TMI 523 - AT - Service Tax

Consideration received for providing coaching/training in English language - taxability - benefit of N/N. 9/2003-ST dated 20/06/2003 and N/N. 24/2004-ST dated 10/09/2004 - scope of coaching or training in English language - Held that - the notification does not talk about any coaching or training in language, either Indian or foreign. Apparently, the lower authorities were guided by the Circular dated 20/06/2003 of the Board which clarified that among other things foreign language institute would not be chargeable to service tax. The Board was clarifying the scope of vocational coaching and training.The lower authorities have mis-directing themselves into the analysis of whether or not English is a foreign language. In similar set of facts, the Tribunal has held that such commercial coaching in English language is covered for exemption under these notifications - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Liability of the appellant to pay service tax for providing coaching/training in English language.
2. Interpretation of the term "vocational training institute" as per Notification No.9/2003-ST and No.24/2004-ST.
3. Applicability of exemption under the notifications for coaching in English language skills.
4. Comparison with similar cases and previous Tribunal decisions.
5. Analysis of the training modules provided by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the liability of the appellant to pay service tax for coaching/training in English language. The lower authorities denied the benefit of exemption under Notification No.9/2003-ST and No.24/2004-ST, holding that the training did not enable trainees to seek employment directly. The Original Authority confirmed a service tax liability, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of "vocational training institute" as defined in the notifications. The Tribunal noted that the notifications exempted services provided by vocational training institutes that impart skills enabling trainees to seek employment or self-employment directly. The dispute focused on whether the appellant's English language training qualified as vocational training under this definition.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of training provided by the appellant, named Persona Lingua, which included accent training and career-oriented modules for call center, hospitality, and aviation jobs. The training brochure highlighted various aspects such as communication skills, accent neutralization, and interview preparation, indicating a focus on employment-related skills. Based on this analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the English language training imparted by the appellant met the criteria for exemption under the notifications.

4. The Tribunal referred to a similar case involving the British School of Language, where coaching in English language was considered eligible for exemption. Additionally, the Tribunal cited a decision involving Maria Computer Systems Pvt. Ltd. to support the exemption claim. In contrast, the Revenue relied on a decision in Prof. Ulhas Vasant Bapat's case, where exemption was denied due to the short duration and perceived lack of employment impact. However, the Tribunal distinguished the present case from Prof. Ulhas Vasant Bapat's case based on the specific and targeted nature of the training modules provided by the appellant.

5. Considering the specific training modules offered by the appellant, the Tribunal found that the courses were designed to enhance employability in call centers and related fields. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of a restrictive list of vocations in the notifications prevented a narrow interpretation based on external categorizations. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments, interpretations of relevant notifications, comparison with precedent cases, and the specific nature of the training provided by the appellant in the context of the liability for service tax.

← Previous Next →