2017 (11) TMI 1276 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal rules scholarship scheme not subject to service tax

M/s Resonance Eduventures Pvt. Ltd., Shri R.K. Verma, Managing Director, M/s Alien Career Institute Versus CCE & ST, Jaipur

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the scholarship scheme offered by the coaching institute was a legitimate business promotion ... Valuation - inclusion of certain concession in the fees by way of their scholarship scheme - Revenue entertained a view that the difference between the actual tuition fee paid by these candidates who were offered concession and the normal fee paid by the other candidates should be considered as a taxable value by applying Rule 3 of Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006 - Section 67 - Held that: - In terms of Section 67, the service tax liability will arise on gross value - there are no reason to consider the concessional portion of fee which is as per the pre-declared publicity material, as part of non-monetary consideration requiring addition to the monetary consideration to arrive at the gross value - there is nothing to hold that the scheme is other than a bonafide practice - valuation rules cannot be invoked - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Quantification of service tax liability with reference to valuation in the case of a scholarship scheme offered by a coaching institute.Analysis:The main issue in this case revolved around the quantification of service tax liability concerning a scholarship scheme provided by a coaching institute. The main appellant, engaged in offering commercial training for competitive entrance exams, introduced a scholarship program involving concessions in course fees. The dispute centered on whether the difference between the normal fee and the concessional fee should be considered as taxable value under Rule 3 of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006. The Revenue argued that this difference constituted non-monetary consideration subject to service tax.The lower authorities held that the scholarship scheme involved non-monetary consideration, leading to the imposition of service tax on the difference between normal and concessional fees, along with penalties. The appellants contended that the scholarship program was a legitimate business practice aimed at attracting candidates, devoid of non-monetary elements. They argued that the declared policy for concession did not influence the actual payment and should not be treated as non-monetary consideration.After considering both sides, the Tribunal examined whether the concessional fee collected from specific candidates could be deemed a bonafide transaction for tax purposes. Upon reviewing the scholarship program's prospectus, the Tribunal noted that concessions were offered to candidates based on proficiency, past association with the institute, or familial relationships. The Tribunal found the scheme to be a legitimate business promotion strategy, pre-notified to the public. It concluded that the appellants were liable to pay service tax on the gross value received from candidates, without adding the concessional portion to the monetary consideration. The Tribunal rejected the application of valuation rules, affirming the legitimacy of the appellants' fee concession scheme as a bonafide trade practice.In light of the analysis, the Tribunal set aside the lower orders and allowed all the appeals, ruling in favor of the appellants based on the bonafide nature of their scholarship scheme and the absence of non-monetary considerations influencing the transactions.