2022 (8) TMI 707 - HC - Service Tax

Validity of show cause notice - University - Levy of service tax - affiliation fees, penalty / fine for delayed payment from Colleges affiliated to it - rents from certain buildings rented out - case of the petitioner is that, it is imparting education and the entire affiliation fee received by it is towards the same and as per the provisions of Section 66D of the Act and N/N. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. HELD THAT - It is not the case of the respondents that the consideration received towards the educational activity is taxable for service tax. It is their case that affiliation fee collected by the petitioner University cannot be considered as a consideration for providing educational services - the act of University in granting affiliation to a private college has to be considered as a service in furtherance of providing education is erroneous. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay the service tax on the rent received by it from the buildings let out by it? - HELD THAT - Normally, a person is bound to reply to the show cause notice issued by the Authority and it is not appropriate for him to approach the Court without doing the same. However, in the instant case, the dispute does not pertain to quantification of service tax, but whether the respondents Authorities have jurisdiction to demand service tax for the activity of petitioner University in providing education. Further, it is the clear stand of the respondents Authorities before this Court that the activity of the petitioner Institution in granting affiliation to Colleges and consideration received towards it is taxable under the Service Tax. It is not appropriate to relegate the petitioner before the adjudicating Authority - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of authorities to levy service tax on affiliation fees and rents received by a university.
2. Exemption of affiliation fees from service tax under Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Classification of affiliation fees as consideration for educational services.
4. Taxability of rent received from buildings let out by the university.
5. Application of Section 66F(3) of the Act to bundled services provided by the university.
6. Dispute regarding jurisdiction and necessity of approaching the court without replying to the show cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a university receiving affiliation fees, penalty for delayed payments, and rents, challenged a show cause notice proposing service tax on these amounts. The petitioner argued that as per Section 66D and relevant notifications, affiliation fees for providing education services are exempt from service tax. The respondents contended that affiliation fees are not part of educational services but for services provided to private institutions. The court noted that the university, established under the Karnataka State Universities Act, imparts education directly and through affiliated colleges, making affiliation fees a consideration for educational services.

2. The court referred to Section 66D(l) of the Act, which exempts services by way of education as part of a curriculum for obtaining a recognized qualification from service tax. The court held that the university's act of granting affiliation to colleges is a service in furtherance of education, thus falling under the exemption.

3. Regarding the rent received from buildings let out for university activities like canteen and bank facilities, the court applied Section 66F(3) of the Act on bundled services. It concluded that these activities are essential for running the university and naturally bundled with educational services, thus exempting the rent from service tax.

4. The court emphasized that the dispute was not about quantifying service tax but the authority's jurisdiction to demand tax on educational activities. Since the authorities claimed the affiliation fees were taxable, the court found it inappropriate to relegate the petitioner to the adjudicating authority.

5. Consequently, the court set aside the show cause notice and the demand statement, ruling in favor of the petitioner and disposing of the writ petition accordingly.