Boarding school hostel fees tied to student education held naturally bundled under s. 66F; treated as exempt negative-list education

Hostel accommodation provided by a boarding school to its students, for which hostel fees were separately charged during 01.04.2013 to 10.07.2014, was examined to determine whether it constituted a naturally bundled service with education under s. 66F of the Finance Act. Since hostel facility was available only to students receiving education and day scholars were not liable to pay hostel fees, a clear nexus existed, making the services naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business; education imparted the essential character. As education up to higher secondary level falls within the negative list under s. 66D, the bundled service was not taxable. The demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Service tax liability on hostel fees.
2. Whether hostel services are naturally bundled with education services.
3. Exemption applicability under section 66D(m) of the Finance Act.
4. Service tax on rent received from Mody University.
5. Service tax on transportation services provided.
6. Service tax on goods transport agency services.
7. Invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Summary:

1. Service Tax Liability on Hostel Fees:
The appellant contested the demand of service tax on hostel fees collected from students, arguing that the hostel services should be exempt as they are naturally bundled with education services. The Tribunal examined the amendments to Serial No. 9 of the Notification dated 20.06.2012 and noted that the auxiliary educational services provided by an educational institution were taxable from 01.04.2013 to 10.07.2014.

2. Whether Hostel Services Are Naturally Bundled with Education Services:
The Tribunal referred to section 66F of the Finance Act, which deals with bundled services. It concluded that hostel services and education services provided by a boarding school are naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business. The education service gives the essential character to such a bundle, making the entire bundle of services non-taxable as education services are covered under the negative list of section 66D of the Finance Act.

3. Exemption Applicability Under Section 66D(m) of the Finance Act:
The Tribunal noted that education services up to higher secondary school are included in the negative list of services under section 66D of the Finance Act, and thus, are not taxable. Consequently, the hostel services, being naturally bundled with education services, are also non-taxable.

4. Service Tax on Rent Received from Mody University:
The Tribunal did not specifically address the issue of rent received from Mody University in its detailed reasoning, as the primary focus was on the hostel services and their bundling with education services.

5. Service Tax on Transportation Services Provided:
The Tribunal did not provide a separate detailed discussion on the transportation services provided to students and staff, as the primary contention revolved around the hostel services and their taxability.

6. Service Tax on Goods Transport Agency Services:
The Tribunal did not elaborate on the service tax demand related to goods transport agency services in its detailed reasoning.

7. Invocation of the Extended Period of Limitation:
The Tribunal did not specifically address the issue of the extended period of limitation due to the primary focus on the nature of the hostel services and their exemption status.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2017, confirming that the hostel services provided by the appellant are naturally bundled with education services and are thus exempt from service tax. The appeal was allowed, and the demand of service tax on hostel fees was not sustained.

---