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

PJ/Case Law/2019-2020/3597

?Whether sale of books is service? ?Whether provisions of hostel facility and sale of books are to be combined with provisions of commercial training orcoaching service as bundled service?
M/s Major Kalshi Classes Pvt. Ltd. Final Order No. 70147-70148/2020 dated 05.02.2020
Issue:
  • Whether sale of books is service?
  • Whether provisions of hostel facility and sale of books are to be combined with provisions of commercial training orcoaching service as bundled service?
  • Whether service tax was exempted on hostel facility?
 
Brief Facts:The appellants were engaged in providing ‘Commercial Training or coaching Service’. In addition to providing coaching, they were also selling text books published by M/s MKC publication. For the facility of some of the service recipients, the appellants were also providing hostel facility.
 
Appellant’s Contention:The appellant provides the below contentions
1.The appellant has submitted that the books and forms sold were sale of goods and that the books were published by M/sMKC Publication and they were also available to anybody forpurchase and it was not compulsory that they would be available to only those service recipients who were receiving commercial training or coaching service. He has submitted that the said books were available to be sold to anybody on Flipkart. He has further submitted that they issued independentinvoices towards sale of books and the sale of books and forms was maintained separately in the books of account. Hence no service tax was payable on sale of books.

2.The appellant submitted that hostel facility was independent activity and that it was not mandatory for every service recipientof commercial training or coaching service to avail hostel facility. Also they had submitted a list of students who did not avail hostel facility but availed the facility of training or coaching service. Further, they submitted a list of students who availed only hostel facility but did not received coaching service and therefore, it is clear thatcommercial training and coaching and availability of hostel areindependent of each other and the receipt of the same aremaintained separately in the books of account. They chargedRs.15,000/- for a period of six month to the students who preferto stay in the hostel. Further NotificationNo.31/2011 dated 25 April, 2011 exempted short term accommodation where tariff rate of room was less thanRs.1,000/- per day and that the appellant had charged less thanRs.100/- per day and therefore, service tax was not payable. He further submitted that for the period after 01 July, 2012 as perSerial No. 18 of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20 June,2012, if a place is rented out for residential purpose and thetariff is below Rs.1,000/- per day then the same was exempted.It was further submitted that hostel was provided for less thanRs.100/- per day and therefore, the same was admissible forsaid exemption.
 
3. In so far as bundling of the service is concerned, it is submitted that there are provisions in said Section 66F of Finance Act, 1994 indicating that only suchservice can be bundled wherein an element of provisions of oneservice is combined with an element of provision of any otherservice. They submit that commercial training or coachingservices was independent of provision of hostel facility. Furtherevery service recipient of commercial training or coaching wasnot required to avail hostel facility. There were many studentswho were availing hostel facility but were not receiving service ofcommercial training or coaching and therefore, they cannot bebundled.
 
 
Reasoning of Judgement:The tribunal has provided the following judgements with respect to the above mentioned points
1.Relying on decision of Tribunal in the case of Rubic’s Rostrum Coaching Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), it was held that sale of bookswas not taxable activity and therefore, there was no service tax leviable on the sales value of books.

2. It was clarified by CBEC that if large number ofservice receivers of such bundle of services reasonably expectsuch services to be provided as a package then such a packagewould be treated as naturally bundled. Revenue has not broughtany evidence on record that large number of service receiversreasonable expect every provider of commercial training orcoaching service to provide hostel facility. The CBEC has also included that if the majority of serviceprovider in a particular area of business provide similar bundle ofservices then they should be bundled. Revenue has not broughtforward any evidence that majority of service providers in thefield of commercial coaching or training service provided hostelfacility. In terms of the criteria stated in the manner ofdetermining if the services are bundled as clarified by CBEC it is not possible to bundle service ofprovisions of hostel facility with commercial training or coaching. It was held that the provisions ofcommercial training or coaching service and provisions of hostelcannot be bundled under the provisions of Section 66F of theFinance Act, 1994.
 
3.The hostel facility is provided for less than Rs.100/- perday and therefore, it is entitled for exemption under NotificationNo.31/2011 dated 25 April, 2011 and Serial No.18 of NotificationNo.25/2012-ST. Therefore, the confirmation of servicetax on hostel charges was set aside.
 
Comment:-As we have entered the GST era and it has been 3 years, similar issues of bundling of service may arise as well. And in fact there are issues like printing services of books which are being a point dispute whether to be treated as composite supply or not. Hope this judgement be of help in deriving to conclusions.
Prepared By- CA Akanksha Bohra
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