9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 101 - AT - Service TaxLevy of differential service tax - commercial training and coaching services - non-profitable organization - forgery of bills in order to evade payment of duty - HELD THAT - Once the documents as that of bills/profit Loss accounts of the assessee respondent were before the authorities showing that VEIL had been collecting money from the students of commercial coaching in the name of tuition fee and that VES was not capable of imparting such commercial coaching, the evidence with respect to infrastructural facilities being provided by VEIL to VES to impart such coaching becomes absolutely redundant to falsify that VEIL was collecting money in the name of tuition fee for Commercial Coaching. There is no denial that Commercial Coaching was being provided and that VES couldn t provide the same. There is also no denial to the fact that respondent VEIL was separately incorporated company though having similar management as that of VES. There is no dispute that imparting of coaching for competitive examinations such as IIT/JEE, AIEEE etc is a taxable service in terms of Section 65(26)of Finance Act 1994, the findings of Commissioners in Order under challenge are in total ignorance of the evidence on record rather are held to be purely presumptive and is based on the probabilities to just accept the submission in defence. On the contrary, the taxable services were being admittedly imparted and VES was not competent to impart these things. VEIL though is admitted to be interdependent/same organizations as that of VES, but we hold that it is VEIL which was providing taxable service as that of Commercial Coaching against collecting an amount in the name of tuition fee. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
Issues:
1. Demand of service tax for alleged commercial training and coaching services. 2. Remand order directing examination of records and contentions. 3. Dispute regarding liability to pay service tax for commercial coaching services. 4. Absence of respondent during proceedings leading to ex-parte decision. 5. Interpretation of evidence and findings related to commercial coaching services. 6. Applicability of service tax on coaching for competitive examinations. Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal arose from a show-cause notice proposing a demand of service tax for commercial training and coaching services. The order-in-original confirmed the demand, which was later remanded for denovo examination. The subsequent order-in-original held the demand against the respondent not sustainable, leading to the Revenue's appeal. Issue 2: The Tribunal directed the appellant to produce records for examination, emphasizing the need to establish that the amount received was not for commercial coaching services. The remand order required the Commissioner to pass a lawful order after considering the records and contentions presented. Issue 3: The Revenue contended that the respondent failed to discharge its liability for taxable commercial coaching services, despite evidence of receiving payments for coaching fees. The argument highlighted the interdependence of entities VES and VEIL, suggesting the evasion of duty through separate receipts. Issue 4: Due to the absence of the respondent during proceedings and multiple adjournment requests, the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte to decide the matter on its merits, considering the written submissions on record. Issue 5: The findings revealed the interrelation between VES and VEIL, where VES lacked the capacity to provide commercial coaching. Evidence indicated that VEIL collected fees for commercial coaching through separate receipts, despite assertions that the amounts were for infrastructural support. Issue 6: Considering the taxable nature of coaching services for competitive exams, the Tribunal determined that VEIL, despite its relationship with VES, was liable for providing commercial coaching services and collecting fees in the name of tuition. The Commissioner's findings were deemed presumptive and lacking factual basis, leading to the allowance of the Revenue's appeal and setting aside the original order. This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the Tribunal's decision.
|
