Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update No 176 on exemption on service provided in relation to ASSET examination

GST Update No 176 on exemption on service provided in relation to ASSET examination
Bringing education sector under the preview of taxation has always been a sensitive issue since beginning as education is seen more as a social activity rather than commercial one. It is constitutional obligation of the government to provide free education and therefore, exemption has been provided in this respect. However, recently an issue was raised before the hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES PVT LTD V/S UNION OF INDIA as to whether conduct of examination by the applicant will be covered under the exemption granted with respect to services provided to the educational institutions. The petitioner filed application before AAR wherein it was held that the benefit of exemption notification is admissible to the petitioner. However, the revenue authorities filed appeal against the said order passed by AAR before Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling wherein the issue was decided against the assessee. Thereafter, aggrieved by the Order passed by the Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling, the present writ petition has been filed before the Rajasthan High Court. The decision imparted in this respect is subject matter of present update. The applicant is a private limited company engaged in products and solutions used in education segments. An advance ruling was sought as to whether the services by it to educational organisation related to ASSET examination is covered under exemption. It is mandatory for the students to give ASSET exams which are being conducted by schools in their own premises and marks are given after due weightage to the students ASSET score in semester and final exams. The exams can be taken either in online or in offline mode. The GAAAR rule out that the said activity is not exempted since services are not provided to the school and school is just a body by which fee is collected from the students, administration cost of which is provided to school. Reliance was placed on the “Flyer” issued by CBIC. CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??5 The applicant therefore filed a Writ Application contending that GAAAR has erred in its approach without deliberating the difference between “assessment” and “examination”. It is further submitted that if the interpretation of the AAAR is adopted, it shall defeat the fundamental intent of Government to provide exemption to schools and colleges providing education facility. Reliance was placed on Circular No. 151/07/2021-GST dated 17.06.2021 issued by CBIC. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of West Bengal AAR in the case of ASHOK KUMAR BASU 2018(10) TMI, M/S. EDUTEST SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., GUJARAT AAR (2018 (10) TMI 201) AND M/S. THE BANGALORE PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO. LTD., KARNATAKA AAR (2019 (11) TMI 157 wherein it was held that service to educational institution includes services relating to conduct of examination such as service of printing question papers is exempt from GST. The Counsel of respondent submitted that AAAR has lawfully and correctly imparted right order. It was argued that the word “relating to” used in the S. No. 66 of the Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017 cannot be interpreted in a manner to enlarge the scope of entry to include the ASSET within the scope. The Court held that the term “education” is not defined. Therefore, reference was made to the decision of Apex Court in the case of SOLE TRUSTEE, LOKA SHIKSHANA TRUST VS. CIT, (1976) 1 SCC 254 : AIR 1976 SC 10. It was held that the word education has a wider meaning covering all the matter related to imparting and controlling education. Reliance was further placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of K. SHYAM SUNDER (2011) 8 SCC 737 wherein it was held that examination is always considered as a best measure which revolves around education and evaluates the performance of the candidate. In the present case, the applicant is suppling ASSET to various educational institution which are covered under the definition of educational institution. It was stated that two conditions are to be satisfied to be eligible for the exemption. Firstly, the recipient of services should be educational institution and secondly the services should be in the nature of education. Further, it was held that the term “in relation to” has been a matter CA. PRADEEP JAIN ??www.capradeepjain.com??pradeep@capradeepjain.com??6 of interpretation in various courts. Reliance was placed on decision of Apex Court in the case of DOYPACK SYSTEMS (P) LTD VS UOI 1988 (36) ELT 201 SC wherein it was held that the said word carries a wider meaning. It was further held that it is well-settled that even in tax statutes, an exemption provision should be liberally interpreted to achieve the basic objective and intention of the exemption. Therefore, it was held that the services shall be exempt vide Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017. The above ruling is a sigh of relief for the taxpayers engaged in providing ancillary educational services. The above subject matter has been prone to litigations since inception as the Courts are flooded with number of cases on the same. To illustrate, in the case of MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER CONSULTANTS, WEST BENGAL AAR, it was held that no GST shall be leviable on services related to conduct of examination for education board. The above decision by Gujarat High Court is having a binding effect on the department. It is high time the authorities should follow these Judicial Pronouncements and avoid taking unreasonable steps resulting into harassment of tax payers.
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