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 No 265 on taxability of educational board conducting examination

GST Update No 265 on taxability of educational board conducting examination
With the advent of paradigm shift in indirect taxation sector, the question as regards to applicability of GST on education sector is a matter of grave concern. Following the passage of time, commercialisation in educational sector has increased tremendously. The Government has exempted the services provided to and by educational institutions vide Exemption Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. On similar lines, one case was reported before Karnataka AAR in the case of M/S KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION BOARD. The decision imparted is subject matter of our present update.
 
The applicant is an independent board engaged in holding and conducting examinations. The advance ruling was sought in respect of following questions:
1.   Whether the applicant is an “educational institution” and ought to be treated as such for the purpose of GST applicability?
2.   Whether the activity of printing question papers, admit cards, answer sheets, fail marks cards etc. be treated as supply of service. If so, whether it is ancillary service be covered under Exemption Notification and thereby attract NIL rate of tax?
3.   Whether the services of scanning of notebooks, hiring of light vehicles and heavy vehicles for transportation of educational material, obtaining security guards and house keeping services etc. is exempted from GST being covered by Notification No. 12/2017 dated 28.06.2017.
 
The applicant analysed and submitted definition of “educational institution” as given in the Exemption Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 wherein it was concluded that the legislative intent clearly specifies that educational institution is one which provides services facilitating in obtaining qualification recognised under any law for the time being in force. Therefore, they are educational institution. Reliance in this respect was placed on various decisions of High Courts and Supreme Court such as Gujarat High Court in the case of M/S SAHITYA MUDRANALAYA PRIVATE LIMITED V/S ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, GENERAL. It was further argued that the Legislature meant the entire process of preparation of curriculum to holding of examination leading to obtaining qualification in recognised law is covered.  Therefore, the school board would clearly fall under the definition of “educational institution”. Furthermore, it was submitted that incidental services provided to Board or on behalf of Board can be indisputably classified under services and not goods. Therefore, they are exempted vide S. No. 66 of the Exemption notification.
 
The AAR analysed and held that the Karnataka Board is an educational institution for the purpose of providing service by way of conduct of examination to the students. Further, as far as printing activity is concerned, the applicant is recipient of service and the printing activities are carried on by third party. However, it was concluded that as per Section 95 of CGST Act, 2017, advance ruling can be sought by the applicant who proposes or undertakes the activity and not by recipient of supply. Therefore, the Authority for Advance Ruling refrained itself from imparting any judgement on the said point.
 
There have been various advance rulings wherein the advance ruling has refrained from commenting on the issue as the application for advance ruling was filed by the recipient of service rather than the supplier of service. As regards considering education board as “educational institution”, it is pertinent to mention here that CBIC addressed the difficulties faced by industry in this respect and thereby issued a Circular No. 151/07/2021-GST dated 17.06.2021 clarifying that Central and State Education Boards shall be treated as Educational Institution for the limited purpose of providing services by way of conduct of examination to the students. It is high time that the circulars should be  followed by departmental authorities so that unwarranted litigation may be avoided.
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