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

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2013-14/1705

Whether training of visual effects and animation liable for benefit of exemption under vocational training?

Case:-M/s DIGITAL MAGIC VISUAL INDIA LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI
 
Citation:-2013-TIOL-1292-CESTAT-MAD

Brief facts :- The applicant is engaged in the activity of video tape production and also providing training in visual effects and animation. There is a demand against the applicant under five broad categories as under:-
 

S. No. Description of Demand Amount Amount
1.      Non-payment of service tax for the period from April 2008 to March 2009 16,29,611/-
2.      Non-payment of service tax on Commercial Training or Coaching Service – April 2006 to March 2009 30,73,675/-
3.      Short payment of service tax for the period from April 2004 to March 2008 87,905/-
4.      Irregular availment of CENVAT credit 2,34,384/-
5.      Non-payment of interest on delayed payment of service tax for the period from April 2004 to March 2008 1,19,091/-
 

 
Appellant contention :-The appellant contented that in the case of Item No. 1, the applicant collected the service tax but did not pay to the Department. The counsel for the applicant is not contesting the demand except to the extent of in this respect a small difference in the quantification. So is the case for demands at item Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in the table above.
 
In the case of Item No.2 which relates to service tax under the heading "Commercial Training or Coaching", his contention is that the training imparted by the applicant was actually in the field of visual effects and visual communication and animation. He concedes that such training was imparted using computers. He is claiming exemption under Notification No. 24/2004-ST dated 10.9.2004 as amended which provided exemption for training provided by a vocational training institute. He submits that the training imparted by his client qualifies as vocational training. Therefore, he prays for waiver of dues arising from the order for admission of appeal.
 
Respondent contention :-Opposing the prayer the learned AR for Revenue submits that from 16.6.2005, the notification No.24/2004-ST was specifically amended to add following proviso:
 
"Provided that nothing contained in this notification shall apply to the taxable services provided in relation to commercial training or coaching by a computer training institute.";
 
Further an Explanation reading as under was also inserted:
 
'(iii) "computer training institute" means a commercial training or coaching centre which provides coaching or training relating to computer software or hardware
 
So he argues that the impugned training is imparted using computer cannot be covered by the said exemption. In this connection the applicants will not be eligible for this exemption. He argues that the training is actually a computer training.
 
Reasoning of judgment :- There can be a doubt as to whether training provided in writing codes using languages like UNIX or for using a Relational Database Management System like Oracle or a Front End Tool like Java are on the same footing as a training in creating animation using a software in computer. There are similar training like CAD (Computer Aided Design) or CAM (Computer Aided Manufacture) which types of trainings also provided by Computer Training Institutes using computer and necessary software. Though the difference between the two type is very thin there is some difference in the level of knowledge of the internal structure of software that is imparted. The training provided by the applicant appears to be of the latter type where not much knowledge about the contents of software is imparted but the skill to use software is imparted. But prima facie the latter type of training also is known as “computer training” to common man. The matter needs detailed examination in final hearing.
 
In view of the above facts and discussions, we direct the applicant to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees thirty five lakhs only) within a period of six weeks and report compliance on 10.7.2013. Upon such deposit, pre-deposit of the balance dues arising from the impugned order stand waived and its collection stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
 
Decision :-Pre-deposit ordered.

Comment:-The substance of this case is that training as regards visual effects and animation is also a sort of “computer training” in layman language and cannot be held to be liable for benefit of the exemption given to the vocational training at the outset.

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