9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 71 - SC - Service TaxCommercial training or coaching - Computer Training Services - from 10th Sept., 2004 to 15th June, 2005 - Amendment to Exemption notification no. 24/2004 dated 10.09.2004 vide notification dated 16-6-2005 whether retrospective - Held that - the Central Government was fully conscious of the fact that the said computer training institute should not get the exemption and intended the same to be shown by specifically excluding the same from the purview of the notification dt. 10th Sept., 2004. The notification was also in operation from the date of its issuance, i.e., from 10th Sept., 2004 to 15th June, 2005 without there being any other intendment. Regarding retrospective effect - the said amendment was brought in by adding the proviso more or less in the nature of clarification and the same was made effective from 16th June, 2005. The Government thought it fit to make it abundantly clear by issuing the said notification. The liability, so far as the respondent is concerned, to pay the service-tax between the period 10th Sept., 2004 to 15th June, 2005, therefore subsisted. - Decided in favor of revenue - HC order reversed
Issues:
Challenge to judgment affirming service-tax exemption for a computer training institute from a specific period. Analysis: The appellant challenged a judgment affirming the decision that a computer training institute was exempt from paying service-tax for a certain period due to a notification issued in 2005. The notification excluded computer training institutes from the exemption granted to vocational and recreational training institutes. The Central Government was conscious of this exclusion, and the notification was in effect from September 2004 to June 2005. The notification issued in 2005 amended the previous notification to clarify that computer training institutes were exempt from service-tax only from June 2005 onwards. The Court found that the amendment was more of a clarification, and the liability to pay service-tax for the period before June 2005 still applied to the respondent. The appeal was allowed to this extent, and each party was left to bear their own costs.
|
