2018 (8) TMI 1454 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial coaching or training centre services - assessee were registered under the Societies Act, 1860 - first appellate authority has held that if a service provider is registered under the Societies Act, 1860, the said service provider will not get covered under the head commercial coaching and training centre - Held that - The first appellate authority has not touched the merits of the case which were put up in the grounds of appeal before him and has disposed of the appeal only on this point - while upholding that the appellant is covered under the commercial coaching and training centre services, the matter remanded back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh on various other grounds of appeal raised by the respondent before him on merits as well as on limitation. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Confirmation of demand of Service Tax liability on the respondent under the category of commercial coaching or training center services during a specific period.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.09/2009 (G) ST, dated 05.06.2009. Despite no representation from the respondent, the appeal was taken up for disposal due to its age and narrow scope.

2. The issue revolved around the Service Tax liability on the respondent for providing coaching services from 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2008. The Revenue argued that the services rendered were taxable, while the respondent contended that being registered under the Societies Act, 1860, they were not engaged in commercial activities. The adjudicating authority upheld the demands, but the first appellate authority ruled in favor of the respondent based on a Tribunal decision in another case.

3. The Tribunal noted that the Tribunal's previous decision had been overruled by the Apex Court due to a retrospective amendment to the definition of commercial coaching and training center services. As per the Apex Court's ruling, even service providers registered under the Societies Act, 1860, were now liable under this category. The first appellate authority had not considered other grounds raised by the respondent, so the matter was remanded for a fresh review.

4. The Tribunal remanded the case to the first appellate authority for a reevaluation on all grounds except the retrospective amendment issue. The decision was made to ensure a fair assessment following principles of natural justice, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits. The appeal was disposed of by way of remanding for further review.

Conclusion: The Tribunal remanded the case back to the first appellate authority for a fresh evaluation on all grounds raised by the respondent, except for the issue of retrospective amendment to the definition of commercial coaching and training center services.