Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of Government-aided institute on taxability of student placement fees

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant, a Government-aided institute, in a case concerning the taxability of placement fees collected from students under Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services. The Tribunal held that since the fees were not collected from employers or prospective employers but from students, the service did not fall within the taxable service definition. Therefore, the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties was set aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The judgment was delivered by Member (Judicial) M. V. Ravindran.

---

---

Issues: Taxability of amount collected as placement fees under Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai dealt with the issue of taxability of the amount collected by the appellant from students as placement fees under Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services. The revenue authorities contended that the amount was taxable, leading to the imposition of service tax liability, interest, and penalties. The appellant, a Government-aided institute conducting management courses, argued that the fees collected were to cover expenses for organizing campus interviews. They cited a previous Tribunal case where a similar demand was set aside in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal examined the case law and found that the issue was no longer res integra. The demand was solely on the placement fees collected by the appellant. Referring to the judgment in the previous case, the Tribunal highlighted the definition of manpower recruitment or supply agency service, emphasizing that the taxable service involved the recruitment or supply of manpower to a client, who must be an employer or prospective employer. Since the placement charges were collected from students and not employers, the service did not fall within the purview of the taxable service as defined. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The judgment was delivered by Member (Judicial) M. V. Ravindran.

---