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

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1572

Organization short terms courses on topics rel to forest management - whether Management Consultancy Service?

Case: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF FOREST MANAGEMENT V/s COMMR. OF C. EX., BHOPAL
 
Citation: 2012 (25) S.T.R. 302 (Tri.-Del.)
 
Issue:- Asseessee organize short term courses in various subjects relating to Forest Management etc - Whether services provided by assessee are covered by the definition of “Management Consultancy Service” which attracts service tax under Section 65(65)?
 
Brief Facts: -The appellant-assessee is an autonomous Institute under the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India and it is a premier Institute for education research, training and consultancy in the area of Forest Management. The appellant runs classes for various degree and diploma courses and besides this, also organize short term courses in various subjects relating to Forest Management, Social Forestry, Water shed management, Environmental Management System etc. for which no degree or diploma is given. These short term classes are organized mainly out of grants received by the appellant from the Government for this purpose, though some amount is charged from the participant. The department was of the view that the activity of organizing short term courses on various topics relating to forestry management, environment, etc. is covered by the definition of "management consultancy" and accordingly the same would attract service tax. According to the department, during the period from 1999-2002 to 2002-04, the appellant had provided taxable service of "management consultancy" for various organizations for which they have received an amount of Rs. 3,78,01,521/- on which the service tax chargeable would be Rs. 2379985/- which has not been paid. It is on this basis the show cause notice was issued to the appellant for Demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 2379985/- along with interest; and imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
 
The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 3-1-2008 by which–
1) the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 821137/- was confirmed along with interest under Section 73 read with Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the service tax demand for the remaining amount of Rs. 1558844/- was dropped;
2) Penalty of Rs. 200/- per day under Section 76 ibid was imposed for failure to pay the service tax by due date from the date on which the tax was due till the date of payment of service tax; and
3)  Penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 and Rs. 8,21,137/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order of the Additional Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 18-7-2008 upheld the Additional Commissioner's order and dismissed the appeal. The order-in-original dated 3-1-2008 of the Additional Commissioner was reviewed by the Commissioner under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 and vide order in review dated 24-12-2009 the Commissioner –
1)  Confirmed the demand of Rs. 1767129/- as additional service tax liability under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest;
2)  Imposed penalty of Rs. 200/- per day under Section 76 in respect of failure to pay the tax by due date; and
3) Imposed penalty of Rs. 1767129/- under Section 78 ibid.
While Appeal No. ST/695/2008 has been filed by the appellant the order dated 18-7-2008 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) the second appeal No. ST/106/2010 has been filed by the appellant the Commissioner's order-in-revision dated 24-12-2009.
 
Appellant’s Contention: - The appellant asserted that  the their activity of organizing short term courses on various subjects relating to Forestry Management, Environment, Water Resources Management, etc. is not covered by the definition of 'Management Consultancy Services', as given under Section 65(65) of the Finance Act, 1994, that the appellant does not conceptualize, devise, develop, modify, rectify or upgrade any working system of any organization, that the short term courses organized are meant for Senior Officers of Indian Forest Service, National A forestation and Ecodevelopment Board, Department of Science & Technology, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, etc, that these courses have nothing to do with the Management Consultancy Service, that the Commissioner has failed to observe that the they are neither engaged in management of any organization in any manner nor in rendering any consultancy, advice or technical assistance to any organization in connection with management of that organization, that since the their activity is not covered by the definition of "Management Consultancy Service", no service tax is chargeable and as such, the impugned orders are not correct.
 
Respondent’s Contention: - The respondent defended the impugned orders by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasized that the appellant's activity is covered by the definition of Management Consultancy Services as given in Section 65(65) read with Section 65(105)(r) of the Finance Act, 1994. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders.
 
Reasoning of Judgment: -The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the activity on which the service tax demand has been raised is organizing of short term courses for the persons of various organizations on various topics relating to Forestry Management, Environment Management System Social Forestry, Water Resources Management, etc. According to the Department, this activity of the appellant is covered by the definition of Management Consultancy Service which attracts service tax. Section 65(65) defines the taxable service in respect of a Management Consultant as any service provided or to be provided to a client by a Management Consultant in connection with the management of any organization in any manner. During the period of dispute, the term "Management Consultant" was defined in Section 65(65) of the Finance Act, 1994 as "The Management Consultant means any person who is engaged in providing any service, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the management of any organization in any manner and includes a person, who renders any advice, consultancy or technical assistance leading to conceptualizing, devising, developing, modifying, rectifying or upgrading of any working system of any organization."
 
Thus, for treating a person as Management Consultant, the following conditions must be satisfied:-
 
1) The person must be engaged in providing either directly or indirectly a service in connection with the management of any organization in any manner;
 
2) The service rendered by the person must relate to rendering any advice, consultancy or technical assistance relating to conceptualizing, devising, developing, modifying, rectifying or upgrading of any working system of some organization.
 
In this case, the focus of the appellant's activity in organizing short term courses on the subject relating to the Forestry, Water Resources Management, Environment, for the officers of Indian Forest Service and other organizations i.e. improving the skills and knowledge level of the persons of various organizations attending the courses and as such, there is no activity of the appellant, which can be called rendering advice, directly or indirectly, in connection with management of any organization. Just imparting training in certain areas to the Officers of certain organizations does not amount to rendering the service of Management Consultancy either directly or indirectly to that organization. Therefore, they hold that the activity of organizing of the short term courses, in this case, is not covered by the definition of 'Management Consultancy Service' and, hence, the impugned orders upholding the service tax demand and penalty are not sustainable.
 
Decision: - Appeal allowed.

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