Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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