9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficate of Associate Fellow in Indian Institute of Planning and Management (AFIIPM), Fellow Indian Institute of Planning and Management (FIIPM) of IIPM and also MBA, BBA Degrees of International Management Institute (IMI), Europe. Head Office and Institutes are situated in New Delhi with various branch offices and institutions in other places. Intelligence was received by DGCEI that IIPM was not paying Service Tax on the fees collected for the various academic courses like MBA, BBA, FIIPM, AFIIPM and also various training courses being organized by them. Accordingly, investigation was undertaken by DGCEI, Chennai Unit. After collecting relevant documents and recording the statements of various persons connected with IIPM Show Cause Notice dated 10/02/2006 was issued and after the due process of adjudication the impugned order came to be passed. It is pertinent to record that the respondent was not registered centrally under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994; hence show cause notices demanding Service Tax were answerable to various Jurisdictional Service Tax Authorities. The Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi adjudicated the matter as a Common Adjudicating Authority nominated by CBEC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has dropped the demand of Service Tax on the fees collected by IIPM towards such courses. 5. With this background we heard Shri Amresh Jain, Ld. DR for the revenue as well Shri Amit Singh, Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent. 6. The Ld. DR submitted the arguments of Revenue which are summarized below:- i. The Adjudicating Authority has erred in making a distinction between academic courses and Commercial Training or coaching. The statute provides for a specific definition for both Commercial Training or Coaching [Section (65) (26)] as well as Commercial Training or Coaching Centre [Section (65) (27)]. Only those centers which are covered under the exclusions provided in Section 65 (27) will fall outside the Service Tax ambit. Evidently, the activity of IIPM is in a field other than sports, or pre-school coaching. The Certificates/ diploma/ degree issued by IIPM are not recognized by law since they do not have the approval of AICTE or UGC. IIPM is also not affiliated to any University. Consequently, the exclusion provided in the statutory definition is not applicable to IIPM. ii. The adjudicating authority has classified the course run by IIPM under the category of aca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 65(105) (zzc) of the Act, ibid. In Board‟s letter F. No. 334/1/2010-TRU dated 26.02.2010 in para 6.1 it has been clearly stated that the schools, institutes, colleges, universities providing courses that lead to award of recognized diplomas, degrees and sports education were kept out of tax net. As such, it cannot be argued that "academic education‟ is distinct from "training‟ or "coaching‟ and that, since, these institutions were imparting "academic education‟, they were not liable to service tax. 7.2 Erroneous import of words "Education" and "Academic" by Adjudicating Authority- The legislative intent of the taxing entry has been clearly brought out in the legal provisions contained in Section 65 (105) (zzc) read with Section 65 (26) and Section 65 (27) of Finance Act, 1994, where under, definition of "Commercial training and Coaching‟ is clearly stipulated. In such a scenario, as per the rules of interpretation, there was no need for Adjudicating Authority to import words like "Education" & "Academic". Even otherwise as per Wikipedia, Education has been defined as follows:- Education is the process of facilitating learning, or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble High Court considered the status of the petitioner with reference to Section 10 (23) C of the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble High Court held that even though the petitioner was not an Institution recognized by UGC for imparting formal education, they cannot be considered as Coaching or Training Institute. The petitioner was held to be an Educational Institution. On similar lines he submitted that IIPM is to be considered as an Academic Educational Institution and not covered within the definition of "Commercial Coaching or Training Centre". v. Referring to the case law of United Southcity (supra) relied upon by the Ld. DR, he submitted that even going by the said case law, the demand is required to be restricted to that falling within the normal time limit. vi. He also argued that the levy of Service Tax on Commercial Coaching or Training Services was not free from doubt and hence there is no justification for invoking the extended time limit. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. Our findings and conclusions are given below. 10. The statutory definitions which are relevant for the purpose of present dispute are reproduced below for ready r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "25. On the aforesaid analysis, we answer the reference as follows :- (i) The taxable service of "commercial training or coaching" occurs when any institute or establishment is engaged in the activity of imparting skill, knowledge or lessons on any subject or field (excluding sports), irrespective of whether such imparting of skill, knowledge or lessons is in respect of particular discipline or a broad spectrum of disciplines/academic areas; irrespective of the nomenclature or description of the institute or establishment, as a coaching or training centre or an educational institution; regardless of whether an institute or establishment is incorporated by or registered under any law; and irrespective of distinctions on the basis of curriculum, course content, teaching methodology, course duration or otherwise. Activities of imparting skills, knowledge, lessons on any subject or field or when provided by any entity, institution or establishment which is excluded by a specific and legislated exclusionary clause would alone be outside the fold of the taxable activity." 12. If we apply the above ratio to the facts of the case before us, we are led to the conclusion that there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Foreign University but the demand was restricted to normal time limit. The reason cited in the order for such restriction is the retrospective amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2010 in the definition of Section 65 (27) wherein an "Explanation" was inserted w.e.f. 01/07/2003. The Explanation is relevant only in respect of a "Commercial Training or Coaching Centre" which is registered as an Organization carrying out activity without profit motive. In the facts of the present case this aspect of IIPM is not in debate. This plea has neither been taken before the Adjudicating Authority nor before us. Consequently, we are of the view that the case of M/s Unitech Southcity Educational Charitable Trust and others is distinguishable to this extent from the facts of the present case. 15. It is on record that IIPM neither took registration nor registered themselves with Department up to 22/07/2005. On the said day the registration was taken only at Bangalore even though IIPM has Institutes in many other places. They also did not pay any Service Tax or file ST-3 Returns even though the tax on Commercial Training or Coaching Centre was levied w.e.f. 01/07/2003. Since they have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
