Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST update /2026-27/0007

Advance Ruling in case of M/s Codeword Process and Printers

GST UPDATE

Hon’ble Authority: Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Karnataka
Applicant: M/s Codeword Process and Printers
Hon’ble Authorities Shri Kalyanam Rajesh Rama Rao (Centre) and Shri Sivakumar S Itagi (State)
Date of Order 16.03.2026
Outcome In favour of the Applicant
 

Brief Facts of the Case

M/s Codeword Process and Printers (hereinafter referred to as “the applicant”) is engaged in the business of providing specialized printing services, primarily involving the printing of confidential examination question papers for universities and educational boards. The activity undertaken by the applicant is executed strictly in accordance with the specifications, format, design, and content supplied by the recipient institutions. The applicant does not exercise any control over the content of the question papers and performs the printing function under strict confidentiality protocols due to the sensitive nature of the documents. The printed materials are used exclusively for conducting examinations by universities. In this backdrop, the applicant approached the Authority for Advance Ruling seeking clarity on the applicability of GST on such services.

Relevant Section / Notification

  • Entry 66(b)(iv) of Notification No. 12/2017-CT
  • Paragraph 2y (ii) of the Notification No. 12/2017

Question before Hon’ble Authority

  • Whether universities fall within the definition of “educational institution” as per paragraph 2y of the Notification No. 12/2017?
  • Whether the activity of printing examination question papers for universities would qualify as a service “relating to the conduct of examination” provided to an educational institution, thereby making it eligible for exemption under Entry 66(b)(iv) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate)?

Applicants Interpretation

The applicant contended that the printing of question papers is an indispensable and integral component of the examination process, without which the conduct of examinations would not be feasible.
 It was argued that the expression “relating to” used in Entry 66 is of wide amplitude and is intended to encompass not only core examination activities but also ancillary and support services that are intrinsically connected to the examination process.
The applicant further submitted that universities are undisputedly educational institutions as they provide education leading to qualifications recognized by law.

Other AAR Relied Upon

AAR Citation
Orient Press Ltd.  [2019] 106 taxmann.com 240 / (26) (AAR-Mah.) (GST/ARA/89/2018-19/B-23, dated 27.02.2019)
Ashok Kumar Basu (Manali Enterprises) In re [18/WBAAR/18-19, dated 28.09.2018] {2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 49 (AAR-GST)
Hitech Print Systems Ltd., In re [2021] 131 taxmann.com 29 / 88 GST 527 / (55) G.S.T.L. 69 (AAR-AP) {24/AP/GST/2020, dated 15.12.2020)
Management & Computers Consultants In re [2021] 133 taxmann.com 100 / [2022] 89 GST 752 / (60) G.S.T.L. 505 (AAR-WB) {08/WBAAR/2021-22,

Findings and Judgement

Regarding Universities falling in the ambit of ‘Educational Institution’
Upon examination of the Clause 2(y) of the Definitions under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended, which is defined as follows:
 "Educational Institution" as under: "Educational institution" means an institution providing services by way of, -
i) pre-school education and education up to higher secondary school or equivalent;
( (ii) education as a part of a curriculum for obtaining a qualification recognized by any law for the time being in force;
(iii) education as a part of an approved vocational education course;
 
The Authority addressed the status of universities and concluded that they squarely fall within the definition of “educational institution” as they provide education culminating in qualifications recognized by law and are empowered to prescribe curriculam, conduct examinations, and award recognized degrees under laws such as the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. As the education provided by universities is structured and leads to recognized qualifications, they qualify as “educational institutions” under paragraph 2(y) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). Further, Hon’able Karnataka High Court in Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences has held that University is an educational institution for the purpose of exemption notifications. This view has been upheld by the Hon’able Supreme Court also.
Regarding taxability on activity of printing examination question papers for universities by the Applicant
The Authorities carefully analysed the language of Entry No. 66(b)(iv) of Notification No. 12/2017-CT which is reproduced as below:
“Services relating to admission to , or conduct of examination by, such instituition”
It was held that the said notification exempts services provided to educational institutions in relation to admission or conduct of examination. The phrase “relating to” has been interpreted broadly to include not only core activities but also ancillary and incidental services that have a direct nexus with such functions. Since universities are statutory educational institutions required to conduct examinations, activities like printing of question papers being indispensable and integrally connected, qualify as services relating to the conduct of examinations. This position is further supported by Circular No. 151/07/2021-GST dated 17.06.2021, which clarifies that services such as online testing, result publication, and printing of admit cards and question papers are covered under the exemption.
Accordingly, the AAR held that printing of examination question papers by the applicant is exempt from GST under Entry 66(b)(iv).
 
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com