2018 (4) TMI 664 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial Training and Coaching Center - case of Revenue is that the certificate of marks is issued by the Board of Intermediate Education (BIE) and not by appellant; as appellants are not issuing any certificates to the students and cannot claim exemption; coaching for the intermediate education and for National Entrance Examination are distinct activities and coaching for such entrance examinations does not lead to issue of any certificate recognized by law - N/N. 33/2011-ST. For the period 2011-2012 - Held that - For applicability of the exemption, post 1.5.2011, plain reading of the notification is that the coaching or training should lead to issue of a certificate / degree / diploma or educational qualification recognized by law. It is significant that, post 1.5.2011, even the controversy relating to issue of certificate / degree etc. is settled in favour of the appellant as the notification clearly provided that the coaching or training should lead to issue of a certificate etc - It is settled law that if the plain meaning of the exemption notification covers the assessee, the benefit should be allowed - even if courses can be artificially split as intermediate and entrance coaching, the essential character flows from the intermediate training and hence the appellants are eligible for the exemption under N/N. 33/2011-ST with effect from 01.05.2011. For the period 2012-2013 - Held that - the primary activity of the Appellant is to impart intermediate education. The Appellants are imparting training for various national entrance tests which are integrated to their intermediate courses as prescribed by the Board. Therefore, the predominant nature of the service will be imparting formal education which stands excluded from service tax net - the activity of the Appellants are not taxable for the impugned period also. For the period 2013-2014 - Held that - during the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2'013 as regards imparting skill, knowledge, education or development of course content or any other knowledge, all stood exempt from the payment of service tax by a combined reading of Section 66B, 66D and N/N. 25/2012-S.T., dated 20.6.2012 - demand not sustainable. For the period 2014-2015 - Held that - essentially an activity by an 'education institution' as defined with reference to Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 was outside the purview of service tax and the Appellants are squarely covered in the ambit of the same, accordingly demand of service tax under any category fails - demand fails. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of service tax on educational services provided by the appellant society.
2. Classification of services as commercial training or coaching.
3. Eligibility for exemption under various notifications and negative list provisions.
4. Segregation of fees for intermediate education and coaching for entrance exams.
5. Applicability of reverse charge mechanism for services received by the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Service Tax on Educational Services Provided by the Appellant Society:
The appellant society, registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860, operates educational institutions and is recognized as a charitable institution. The society imparts education through junior colleges and coaching centers, with the junior colleges recognized by the Andhra Pradesh Intermediate Board. The primary issue is whether the services provided by the appellant are subject to service tax for the period from 2011 to 2015.

2. Classification of Services as Commercial Training or Coaching:
For the period 2011-2012, the definition of "commercial training or coaching center" was amended to include institutions providing formal education. However, exemption Notification No. 33/2011-ST dated 25.04.2011 exempted coaching or training leading to a certificate or educational qualification recognized by law. The Tribunal found that the appellant's activities qualify for this exemption as they lead to the issuance of certificates recognized by the Andhra Pradesh Intermediate Board.

3. Eligibility for Exemption Under Various Notifications and Negative List Provisions:
- 2011-2012: The Tribunal held that the appellant's services are exempt under Notification No. 33/2011-ST as they lead to recognized educational qualifications.
- 2012-2013: With the shift to a negative list regime, Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994, exempted education as part of a curriculum for obtaining a recognized qualification. The Tribunal found that the appellant's services fall under this exemption.
- 2013-2014: The Tribunal applied the same reasoning as for 2012-2013, noting that the services are exempt under the combined reading of Section 66B, 66D, and Notification No. 25/2012-ST.
- 2014-2015: Notification No. 06/2014-ST further clarified the exemption for services provided by educational institutions. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's services remain exempt.

4. Segregation of Fees for Intermediate Education and Coaching for Entrance Exams:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant's courses are integrated and cannot be artificially split into intermediate education and entrance exam coaching. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CCE v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., the Tribunal held that composite services cannot be vivisected for the purpose of levying service tax. The essential character of the appellant's services is providing formal education, which is exempt.

5. Applicability of Reverse Charge Mechanism for Services Received by the Appellant:
The Tribunal addressed the lower authority's finding that the appellant is liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism for services like legal services and manpower recruitment. The Tribunal found that these services are exempt under Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012, as the appellant is a charitable trust and not a business entity.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the adjudicating authority, finding that the appellant's services are exempt from service tax for the period 2011-2015. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected. The decision was based on the interpretation of the law as it stood during the relevant period, with specific reference to the changes in the definition of commercial coaching and training centers and the applicable exemptions.