2008 (2) TMI 56 - HC - Service Tax

Petitioner, trust collects fee from students and a part of the said amount is paid to university - taxable in category commercial training/coaching centre - stay order of tribunal is under challenge on ground of undue hardship - except a mere assertion, no more material is placed by petitioner to prove undue hardship - tribunal has rightly decided that there is no Prima facie case in favour of assessee & there will be no undue hardship - Tribunal can t be blamed for the delay - appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of a trust to pay service tax for educational services provided under Distance Education Programme.
2. Validity of the Tribunal's conditional order of stay requiring pre-deposit of service tax amount.
3. Request for a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within a specified time frame.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a trust engaged in providing education under the Distance Education Programme of various universities, contested a Show Cause Notice demanding service tax. The Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of Central Excise upheld the tax liability. The Tribunal issued a conditional stay order, mandating pre-deposit of the service tax amount. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that their service did not fall under the definition of "Commercial Training or Coaching" as per Section 65(26) of the Finance Act. The High Court refrained from opining on the applicability of the Act but noted that the Tribunal considered the lack of a prima facie case and financial position in its decision. The Court cited a Supreme Court judgment on undue hardship and found no merit in the petitioner's claim, dismissing the writ petition.

2. The Court emphasized the need for the petitioner to demonstrate undue hardship due to the pre-deposit condition, which was not adequately substantiated. Referring to legal precedents, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the petitioner failed to establish undue hardship. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's assessment of no prima facie case in favor of the petitioner and absence of undue hardship was justified. The petitioner's plea for a direction to expedite the appeal was considered, and the Tribunal was instructed to resolve the appeal within two months.

3. The Court acknowledged the delay in the appeal process due to the interim order obtained by the petitioner but clarified that the Tribunal should not be blamed for the delay. Despite dismissing the writ petition, the Court directed the Tribunal to expedite the appeal's resolution within a specified timeframe. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely disposal of appeals and concluded by dismissing the petition without costs and closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition.