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

Publish Date: 27 Feb, 2010
Print   |    |  Comment

Commercial Coaching: Only commercial for Government

Article: Commercial Coaching: Only commercial for Government

 

Prepared By:

CA Pradeep Jain

Mayank Palgauta

 

 

The budget, 2010-11 has brought many changes in Service Tax field, although the same was not referred in Finance Minister’s speech. Yet there are many changes in service tax. The service providers of “commercial training or coaching service” are greatly affected due to applicability of new Notifications inserted in this Budget. Prior to this Budget, the word “Commercial” was a point of litigation that this word is to be considered as “for profit making” or not, for service tax purposes. Therefore, we are giving the whole analysis of notifications which will help to know how they will affect upon service providers of the said service.

 

Definition:


The definition of Commercial training or coaching service has been given in Section 65 (26) of the Finance Act, 1994. The said definition is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

 

“Commercial training or coaching centre” means any institute or establishment providing commercial training or coaching for imparting skill or knowledge or lessons on any subject or field other than the sports, with or without issuance of a certificate and includes coaching or tutorial classes but does not include preschool coaching and training centre or any institute or establishment which issues any certificate or diploma or degree or any educational qualification recognized by law for the time being in force;

 

This levy has come by Notification No. 07/2003 dated 20.06.2003 with effect from 01.07.2003.

 

Judicial Pronouncements:

 

From the above definition it is not clear that the Word “Commercial” is to be considered as “for profit making” or not. But in the case of Shri Chandraprasad Desai Memorial Foundation v/s C.S.T., Ahmd it was held that as the education provided by the appellant to poor children with just a nominal fee will amount to no intention to make profit and will not be covered under levy of service tax as it is not commercial. The relevant portion of judgment is as follows: -

 

“…appellant submits that even though fee has been collected from the children, the coaching classes are conducted for poorest class of the society and the fees charged is very nominal and it is being charged only for the purpose that only serious children can attend the course and, further, he also submits that the actual cost of course is much more than fees collected and this activity has been undertaken by the Trust for the benefit of poor children and, therefore, no intention to make in profit.”

 

Thus from the above Revenue Judgment it is clarified that if the coaching centre has provided such service with no intention to make profit then such service will not cover under scope of service tax.

 

There are number of decisions on the same lines from the tribunal which has held that the service tax is not attracted on educational institute if the profit motive is missing.  The exemption was granted to trusts, societies on the basis of the same.

 

Board Circular:-

 

However, the board intention was clear. As per Para 2 of latest Circular No. 107/01/2009- ST, DT 28/01/2009, the board has clarified its position on Commercial training or coaching Services. The clarification is produced as under: -

 

The first issue arises from the very name i.e. Commercial training or coaching center’. Many service providers argue that the word ‘commercial’ appearing in the aforementioned phrase, suggests that to fall under this definition, the establishment or the institute must be commercial (i.e. having profit motive) in nature. It is argued that institutes which are run by charitable trusts or on no-profit basis would not fall within the phrase commercial training or coaching center and none of their activities would fall under the taxable service. This argument is clearly erroneous. As the phrase ‘commercial training or coaching center ‘has been defined in a statute, there is no scope to add or delete words while interpreting the same. The definition commercial training or coaching center has no mention that such institute must have ‘commercial’ (i.e. profit making) intent or motive. Therefore, there is no reason to give a restricted meaning to the phrase.

 

Therefore by going to the Board Clarification it is cleared that the word “Commercial” has not to be considered as “for profit making” and thus service will cover under levy of service tax.

 

But the judicial pronouncements were still in favour of assessee and it was held that the word “Commercial” clearly implies that profit motive should be there. As such, the exemption from service tax was extended to trusts and societies working without the profit motive.

 

Budget’s Outcome: -

 

The board has already clarified its stand from the above notification. But the judicial pronouncement was not coming in their favour. As such the board has come with the legislation. It was clarified that

 

“A view has been taken by taxpayers that the term ’commercial’ appearing in various definitions implies that the institute must be run with a profit Motive to fall under the taxable service.

 

In this Budget 2010-11, in order to clarify the legislative intent, the definition of the taxable service is being suitable amended, through insertion of an Explanation, to clarify that the word ‘commercial’ means any training or coaching that is provided for a consideration irrespective of the presence or absence any profit motive. This amendment is being carried out retrospectively (from July 2003) so as resolve the disputes pending at different levels of the dispute settlement system.”

 

Thus from this Budget it is ample clarified to all taxpayers that whether “Commercial training or coaching center” is profit oriented or not they will have to pay service tax on gross receipts from their service recipients.

 

Conclusion:-

 

The effect of the amendment is very much clear. The word “Commercial” does not have any link with profit. Second very clear message from the Government- “We are the rulers. We can amend the notification retrospectively. Do not fight with us.”

 

Lastly, on the lighter side, the word “Commercial” has proved commercial for the Board only.

 

**********

 

 

 

 

 

 

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