9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quent period from April, 2012 to March, 2015, the activities of the petitioner were liable to service tax since the services rendered by petitioner would not qualify for the exemption contemplated under Ext. P9 Notification. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner preferred a detailed reply, which is produced as Ext. P11 in the writ petition, wherein the case of the petitioner is essentially that the services rendered by him being in the nature of commercial training/coaching services leading to a qualification recognised by law, will not come within the ambit of the levy of service tax for the period prior to 1-7-2012. It was also pointed out in the said reply that, for the period subsequent to 1-7-2012, and upto March, 2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to why the contention of the petitioner regarding exemption available to the services rendered by him could not be accepted. Thus it is found that relegating the petitioner to his alternative remedy of an appeal against Ext. P8 order would be an exercise in futility since Ext. P8 order does not inform the petitioner of the reasons that found favour with the respondent while finding against the petitioner on the issue of exemption, and confirming the demand of service tax and penalty on him - the respondent are not directed to pass a fresh order in lieu of Ext. P8 after considering Ext. P11 reply of the petitioner and after hearing him in the matter. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find from a perusal of Ext. P3 show cause notice issued to the petitioner that, the case of the Department is essentially that the petitioner had been engaged in rendering commercial training or coaching services for the period from April, 2010 to June, 2012, and that for the subsequent period from April, 2012 to March, 2015, the activities of the petitioner were liable to service tax since the services rendered by petitioner would not qualify for the exemption contemplated under Ext. P9 Notification. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner preferred a detailed reply, which is produced as Ext. P11 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has provided services in connection with 'emergency medical services and trauma care' which do not come under as an exempted service as detailed below. The training of skills, technique etc. in health care developed by the trust and imparting of practical knowledge as stated by them are not recognised by law as envisaged in Section 65 of the Act. It is also not a part of the curriculum for obtaining a qualification recognised by any law. Various courses conducted by the trust, designed for life support as claimed by them are not recognised by any university or any statutory authority. Further as submitted by the trust, for the training/courses conducted by them the certificates were issued by them only and the trust has not furnished any do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re and basic life support services. The activities of the trust by way of conducting various courses/training are of commercial in nature. As per Sl. No. 4 of Notification No. 25/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012, the services by an entity registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by way of charitable activities are exempted from payment of Service Tax and the "charitable activities" relating to, (a) abandoned, orphaned or homeless children; (b) physically or mentally abused and traumatized persons; (c) prisoners; or (d) persons over the age of 65 years residing in a rural area are exempted. The services rendered by the trust do not come under any of the above 'charitable activities' mentioned above and the services provided by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y him could not be accepted. That apart, I also find that the petitioner's contention with regard to limitation in respect of the demand for the period prior to 2012 has also not been analysed in the proper manner. I, therefore, find that relegating the petitioner to his alternative remedy of an appeal against Ext. P8 order would be an exercise in futility since Ext. P8 order does not inform the petitioner of the reasons that found favour with the respondent while finding against the petitioner on the issue of exemption, and confirming the demand of service tax and penalty on him. I, therefore, quash Ext. P8 order and direct the respondent to pass a fresh order in lieu of Ext. P8 after considering Ext. P11 reply of the petitioner and after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
