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/2015-16/2597

Whether the sale of study material used by coaching classes is eligible for exemption under Notification no.12/2003?

Case:-CADD CENTRE TRAINING SERVICES (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI-IV

Citation:- 2014(35) S.T.R. 842 (Tri-Chennai)


Brief facts:-
The applicant provides the services of commercial coaching and training in the fields of design, multimedia, architectural, engineering, mechanical design analysis, construction & management etc. They provide such training through their own centres and through their franchisees. In respect of franchise charges, they have been paying service tax under the franchise service. While providing commercial coaching and training, they were selling certain text books to the trainees. Further, it was one of conditions of franchise agreement that the franchisee shall conduct training using training materials supplied by the applicant and the applicant was selling such material to the franchisees. The applicant had not paid service tax on the materials sold directly to trainees in their own centres or to the franchisees.
Appellants contention:- The counsel for the applicant submits that exemption under Notification 12/2003-S.T. is applicable in respect of any materials sold and such exemption notification issued by government cannot be restricted through instructions issued by C.B.E. & C. to sale of standard text books. He further submits that they have been in fact selling their text books to any person who was interested in buying such text books and there were genuine sales to persons other than those to whom they were providing services. He relies on the order of Cerebral Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Indore - 2013-TIOL-34-CESTAT-DEL = 2013 (32)S.T.R.379 (Tribunal)wherein waiver of pre-deposit of dues was granted in similar context.
 
Respondents contention:-Opposing the prayer, ld. AR for Revenue submits that these books were of a type that could be used only in training classes to be provided by the applicant and their franchisees. He drew the attention of the Bench to the clause in the franchise agreement to the condition that franchisee should conduct training classes only using material sold by the applicant. According to him, this is a case of diversion of value of services to value of text books because the VAT rate on text books is very negligible as compared to rate of service tax. He relies on the following decisions in support of his argument:
 
(1)      Soni Classes v. CCE Jaipur - 2013 (30)S.T.R.92 (Tri.-Del.)
(2)      Fiitjee Ltd. v. CST Delhi - 2012 (25)S.T.R.24 (Tri.-Del.)
 
Revenue was of the view that the consideration received for sale of training material would form part of the value of the services rendered by the applicant. Revenue was of the view that exemption under Notification 12/2003-S.T., in relation to goods sold in the course of providing services will be applicable only for standard text books sold and the text books in question were prepared by the applicant and tailor-made for the training classes to be imparted either by them or by their franchisees and therefore the said exemption could not be claimed. Based on such reasoning, a show cause notice was issued for recovery of service tax not paid for the period 2005-06 to Sept., 2009 and after adjudication, an amount of Rs. 2,33,49,899/- is confirmed against the applicant along with interest and penalty.

Reasoning of judgment:-Considered arguments on both sides. In the case of Soni Classes (supra), the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the sale of books was not bonafide transaction based on various evidences which were available in that case. The case of Fiitjee Ltd. (supra) is a stay order. There are few other decisions to the effect that sale of study materials used by coaching classes is eligible for exemption under Notification 12/2003-S.T. as in the case of M/s. Cerebral Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Prima facie, we adopt the reasoning given in the case of Cerebral Learning Solutions (supra) and grant waiver of pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugned order for admission of appeal. There shall be stay on collection of such dues during pendency of appeal.
 
Decision:- Stay application allowed.
 
Comment:- The crux of the case is that exemption under Notification No.12/2003 is in relation to the goods sold in providing the services and is also available to commercial training and institutes in respect of study material supplied by them. The exemption under notification no. 12/2003 cannot be restricted to standard books and rather it is also available for customized books. The ratio of the decision given in case of M/s. Cerebral Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was followed.

Prepared by:-Neelam Jain

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