Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (10) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ERSUS STATE OF MAH AND OTHERS [2004 (9) TMI 682 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], wherein the issue was, Whether the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 over rides the provisions of Architects Act, 1972 in the matter of prescribing and regulating norms and standards of architectural institutions? and the Hon’ble High Court has held that the provisions of the Architects Act are not impliedly repealed by the enactment of AICTE Act because in so far as the Architecture Institutions are concerned, the final authority for the purposes of fixing the norms and standards would be the Council of Architecture. Impugned order upheld - Service tax on degree of B.Arch. not leviable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Service Tax Appeal No. 53428 of 2015 - 53039/2018 - Dated:- 26-9-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And MR. C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Sh. Amresh Jain, DR) For the Respondent : Sh. Sameer Jain, Adv. ORDER PER ANIL CHOUDHARY : The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Original No. JAI-EXCUS-000-COM-002-15-16 dated 17.04.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, whe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ni, Director-cum-Principal and Shri Prabhakar Singh Ranawat, Manager Finance of the assessee-Respondents. 3. The assessee-Respondents submitted the reply to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 19.09.2014 and submitted that they are not liable to pay Service Tax. The learned Commissioner passed the impugned order by dropping the show cause notice dated 19.09.2014 by holding that the assessee-Respondents are not liable to pay Service Tax. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The learned DR for the Department submitted that, the assessee-Respondents are liable to pay Service Tax inasmuch as the degree of B.Arch. is not recognized/approved by AICTE. He placed reliance on the Board s Circular No. 107/1/2009-ST dated 28.01.2009 wherein in para 3.5 of the said Circular, it has been clarified that, from the year 2005 onwards, a technical institution or establishment (which is otherwise recognized being a university, or affiliate college) not having AICTE approval cannot be called to be the one issuing any certificate or diploma or degree or any educational qualification recognized by the law for the time being in force and thus be within the ambit of S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n it is beyond any doubt that any institute or establishment if the same is rendering any education under a curriculum which is recognized by law and degree or diploma or certificate is issued in pursuance to the same, the same being not a training or coaching centre as defined U/s 65(105) (zzc) will be outside the definition of taxable services prior to 1/7/2012. (iii) That in the present matter UGC has recognized B.Arch. i.e. Bachelor of Architecture as a degree U/s. 22(3) of the Act of 1956 which is governed by Architect Act of 1972 which has laid down curriculum, syllabus, minimum standards of education, norms, parameters of its own, which have to be made inconformity with the norms specified by Rajasthan Technical University, Kota whom the noticee is affiliated to. The fixation of fee, the strength of students, the syllabus, the enrolment, registration of qualified students etc., all these and nothing is in the hand of notice, he/ it has to abide by what is provided in the law and hence by any stretch of imagination he/ it does not fall under the definition of commercial coaching centre and its taxable service. (iv) That education is a right which is defined under Arti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... portance. The present show cause notice is not denying the fact that noticee is a approved college by COA and registered with RTU who has granted affiliation and fixed the fee and given the enrollment number. After observing the curriculum as specified by COA and the university the degree is granted by the RTU which is recognized by all the statutory agencies including UGC, UPSC, RPSC etc. In the present facts and circumstances from the period since inception, noticee is rendering services as per curriculum and issuing qualification which is recognized by law and which is admitted from the fact that its students are even accepted by UPSC, RPSC and other competitive examinations and forums. (vii) That the allegations levelled in the show cause notice that the letter of RTU in respective clause of permission requires AICTE approval in letter dated 7.11.2009 pertaining to appointment of staff and building is stereotype letter which is issued to all colleges rendering technical knowledge but it is noteworthy to mention that in the first paragraph they have made reference of COA permission with regard to minimum standards of Education an applicability of act. It is also importa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... registered under Act of 1958 which is non-profit making body, charitable in nature as evident from 12(AA) registration certificate, the bonafide reason that is explained above for which the noticee believes that he/ it is till date not liable for service tax and is falling under the exclusion clause and the negative list for the period after 1.7.2012. Each and every record was on documents which was resumed, the bonafides of not paying tax were explained in the statements rendered U/s. 14 as well as a representation was submitted for withdrawal of proceedings prior to issue of show cause notice which was not considered. (xiv) That the personal penalty alleged upon Shri. K. S. Mahajani, Director cum Principal and Prabhakar Singh Ranawat, Manager-Finance for Act of Commission and Omission are also not applicable as no positive ingredients are reflected in the show cause notice regarding the same and the co-noticees for the above said reasons were always under the belief that no service tax is liable to be paid as on date on the activities of college rendered by their society. They have fully co-operated with the authorities as and when called for. (xv) That in the light of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates