Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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