Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an institution imparting architectural education and issuing a B.Arch. degree, recognised by the statutory university and Council of Architecture but not approved by AICTE, is liable to service tax as a commercial training or coaching centre.
Analysis: The institution was found to be imparting architectural education under a curriculum recognised by law and issuing a degree recognised by statutory bodies. The only objection raised by the Revenue was the absence of AICTE approval. The Tribunal noted that the Architects Act governing architectural education is a special enactment and that AICTE's role vis-a -vis the Council of Architecture is advisory and recommendatory. On that basis, the absence of AICTE approval did not change the legal character of the activity into commercial coaching or training. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the order dropping the demand.
Conclusion: The institution was not liable to service tax under the category of commercial training or coaching centre, and the Revenue's appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where education is imparted under a special statutory framework and the resulting qualification is recognised by law, the absence of AICTE approval does not by itself bring the institution within the taxable category of commercial training or coaching centre.