2016 (12) TMI 1619 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant University Exempt from Service Tax on Distance Education Fees

Sikkim Manipal University of Health Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Siliguri

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant university, holding that the accreditation fee charged by a statutory university for distance education ... Levy of service tax - accreditation fee - revenue relied upon the case of Punjab Technical University vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ludhiana [2016 (1) TMI 162 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - Held that: - the Punjab Technical University case has come after 2013, when the distance education was brought under regulation of the University Grants Commission. But during the period under consideration, the distance education was regulated by the Distance Education Council (DEC), IGNOU, Delhi which is an independent and distinguishable legal entity. The entire fee structure was brought to the net of service tax in the above case law (PTU) but it is not the Revenue’s case in the present case - When it is so then there is no justification to bring the “accreditation fee” to the service tax net - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Interpretation of service tax liability on accreditation fee charged by a statutory university for distance education services provided through learning centers/study centers.Analysis:The primary issue in this case revolves around the service tax liability on the accreditation fee charged by a statutory university for providing distance education services through learning centers/study centers. The appellant university, located in Sikkim, established learning centers in various parts of the country for offering distance education services. The Department contended that only the accreditation fee is subject to service tax, leading to a demand for service tax payment. The appellant challenged this demand, arguing that the learning centers/study centers are not franchisees but rather operate under a memorandum of agreement with the university. The appellant maintained that it is the entity responsible for admitting students, charging fees, and providing guidelines for the centers, with the centers sharing a portion of the fees but not independently charging admission fees. The appellant emphasized that the accreditation fee should not be subject to service tax if the shared fees are not taxable.The appellant's counsel highlighted a specific order dated 22.08.2016, where it was acknowledged that the university collaborates with study centers/learning centers as part of its distance education mode, with the centers assisting in delivering educational programs. The counsel argued that the relationship between the appellant and the centers is based on a memorandum of agreement, and the centers do not have the authority to independently charge admission fees. The counsel distinguished a previous case involving Punjab Technical University, emphasizing that the appellant's case involves a different structure where the university maintains control over admissions, infrastructure, and faculty at the centers. The counsel contended that the cited case law is not applicable to the present situation due to factual and legal distinctions.Upon reviewing the arguments and evidence presented, the Tribunal found that the case law cited by the Revenue, Punjab Technical University vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ludhiana [2016(42) S.T.R. 474 (Tri.-Del.)], was not directly applicable to the current case. The Tribunal noted that the dispute in the present case was limited to the accreditation fee, unlike the broader fee structure subject to tax in the Punjab Technical University case. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the regulatory changes in the education sector, noting that the distance education mode was under the purview of the Distance Education Council (DEC), IGNOU, Delhi during the relevant period, distinct from the regulatory framework in the Punjab Technical University case post-2013. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the service tax liability on accreditation fees charged by a statutory university for distance education services provided through learning centers/study centers. The decision underscores the importance of considering the specific contractual arrangements and regulatory frameworks governing such educational setups in determining the applicability of service tax obligations.