2014 (9) TMI 780 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial training or coaching service - vocational courses - fee/charges collected from students - Held that - Since undisputedly the coaching or training imparted by the petitioner enables its students/trainees to seek employment or undertake self-employment, directly after training or coaching, the petitioner s endeavours fall within vocational training covered by the exemption Notifications - Notification No. 3/2010-S.T., dated 27-2-2010, the Central Government amended earlier exemption Notifications and redefined the expression vocational training institute . While continuing the exemption granted to vocational training institute, vocational training institute is redefined to mean an industrial training institute or an industrial training centre affiliated to the National Council for Vocational Training offering courses in designated trades as notified under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (Central Act 52 of 1961) . Admittedly the petitioner is not an industrial training institute or an industrial training centre affiliated to the National Council for Vocational Training nor does it offer courses in designated trades defined under the Apprentices Act, 1961. On this dynamics of the exemption regime post 27-2-2010, the petitioner falls outside the purview of the exempted categories of taxable services falling within Sections 65(26) and 65(27) read with Section 65(105)(zzc). On this prima facie analysis, the petitioner is liable to remit the Service Tax for services provided on and from 27-2-2010, on the consideration received therefor - Service Tax liability on services provided and the consideration received therefor for the period subsequent to 27-2-2010 would be approximately ₹ 33.33 crore, of which ₹ 3.61 crore has already been remitted. The balance liability therefore for this period would therefore be ₹ 30 crores approximately - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Service tax liability of the petitioner for providing commercial training or coaching services from 1-7-2003 to 31-3-2007.
2. Exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-S.T. and 24/2004-S.T. for vocational training courses.
3. Interpretation of the term "vocational training institute" as per exemption notifications.
4. Impact of Notification No. 3/2010-S.T. on the petitioner's liability post-27-2-2010.
5. Financial distress of the petitioner and waiver of pre-deposit.

Issue 1:
The appeal concerns the Service Tax liability of the petitioner for providing taxable 'commercial training or coaching' services from 1-7-2003 to 31-3-2007. The Tribunal had previously set aside the assessment order and remitted it for de novo determination. The Tribunal upheld the liability to Service Tax, extended the limitation period, and imposed penalties under Section 78. The petitioner's claim for exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-S.T. was granted a hearing afresh.

Issue 2:
The petitioner contends that it qualifies for exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-S.T. and 24/2004-S.T. as it imparts vocational courses exempted from Service Tax liability. The Tribunal analyzed the definitions provided in the exemption notifications and concluded that the petitioner falls within the scope of a vocational training institute, exempting it from Service Tax liability.

Issue 3:
The interpretation of the term "vocational training institute" was crucial in determining the petitioner's eligibility for exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that the definition provided in the exemption notifications was comprehensive and did not require reference to external sources for interpretation. As the petitioner's training enabled students to seek employment or self-employment directly after completion, it was considered within the realm of vocational training.

Issue 4:
Notification No. 3/2010-S.T. redefined 'vocational training institute' to exclude entities not offering designated trades under the Apprentices Act, 1961. The petitioner, not meeting this criterion, was found liable for Service Tax post-27-2-2010. The Tribunal determined the petitioner's liability at approximately &8377; 30 crores for services provided after this date.

Issue 5:
The petitioner's financial distress and failure to collect Service Tax were considered insufficient grounds to escape tax liability. Despite the financial challenges, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit on the condition that the petitioner remit &8377; 30 crores within six weeks. Failure to comply would result in the rejection of the appeal for non-payment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal analyzed the petitioner's liability for Service Tax, exemption claims, and financial circumstances comprehensively, ultimately granting a waiver of pre-deposit subject to specific conditions.