2024 (2) TMI 616 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax on commercial coaching without UGC/AICTE approval set aside as it indirectly burdens students and creates discrimination

M/s Asian School of Media Studies Versus Pr. Commissioner of CGST, Noida

CESTAT Allahabad set aside service tax levy on appellant providing commercial coaching/training services and issuing certificates without UGC or AICTE ... Levy of service tax - Commercial Coaching or Training Services - conducting training and providing certificates to the students without the approval of either University Grants Commission (UGC) or by All India Council for Technical Education - period from April, 2015 to June, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The facts of this appeal are squarely covered by the Final Order No.70251-70252/2021 dated 11.11.2021 [2021 (11) TMI 514 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] decided in the case of the Appellant where it was held that levy of service tax on the education and training provided by parallel college indirectly falls on the students, which is discriminatory. The Appellant (ASMS) is not liable to service tax during the period from April, 2015 to June, 2017 - It is also held that extended period of limitation is not attracted and the SCNs are not found to be in accordance with law for invocation of extended period of limitation - the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Liability to pay Service Tax under 'Commercial Coaching or Training Services' for the period April 2015 to June 2017.2. Recognition and affiliation of the courses offered by the Appellant.3. Applicability of Service Tax exemptions and negative list provisions.4. Invocation of extended period of limitation.Summary:1. Liability to Pay Service Tax:The primary issue was whether the Appellant was liable to pay Service Tax under 'Commercial Coaching or Training Services' for the period from April 2015 to June 2017. The Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Noida, confirmed the demands through a common adjudication order dated 11.05.2020.2. Recognition and Affiliation of Courses:The Revenue alleged that the Appellant's courses were not recognized by law as they were conducted without the approval of the University Grants Commission (UGC) or the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The agreements with Mewar University and Punjab Technical University (PTU) did not grant lawful affiliation, and the certificates issued by the Appellant were not recognized degrees.3. Applicability of Service Tax Exemptions and Negative List Provisions:The Revenue argued that the courses provided by the Appellant did not qualify for exemptions under the negative list entry No. (l) of section 66D or Sr. No.9 of Notification No.25/2012-ST. The Tribunal, however, found that the Appellant's courses were part of a curriculum recognized by law, as the degrees/diplomas were issued by the respective Universities, thereby exempting them from Service Tax.4. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:The Tribunal held that the Appellant was under a bona fide belief that their activities were not liable to Service Tax. The Appellant maintained proper records and complied with various laws, including the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal concluded that the extended period of limitation was not applicable, and the show cause notices were not in accordance with the law for invoking the extended period.Conclusion:The Tribunal found that the facts of the case were covered by a previous decision in favor of the Appellant, where it was held that the Appellant's activities were exempt from Service Tax. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential benefits, ruling that the Appellant was not liable to Service Tax for the period in question and that the extended period of limitation was not applicable.