Educational institution's fees from post graduate programs exempt from service tax under negative list provisions

CESTAT Hyderabad held that an educational institution's fees from post graduate student status program were exempt from service tax as the institution qualified as an educational institution under the negative list, being UGC-recognized and offering degree programs. The tribunal found that externally funded research projects did not constitute taxable services since no service was provided to funders - the institution's research activities were academic in nature with IP placed in public domain through publications. The tribunal rejected extended limitation period and penalties, finding no suppression of facts by the appellant. Appeals were allowed and impugned orders set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of fees charged in the Post Graduate Student Status Program (PGSSP).
2. Taxability of externally funded research projects.
3. Imposition of penalties u/s 78 for alleged suppression of facts.

Summary:

Issue 1: Taxability of PGSSP Fees
The impugned order in Appeal No. ST/30082/2020 dropped the demand for service tax on fees collected from students in the PGSSP. It was held that the PGSSP only gives access to the Institute's regular courses, and the credits earned were counted towards a formal postgraduate degree. The regular courses/degrees offered by IIIT are notified degrees, exempted from service tax u/s 66D of the Finance Act 1994. The tribunal agreed with this reasoning, stating that IIIT, being an educational institution offering recognized degrees, is exempt from service tax for services to its students, including PGSSP.

Issue 2: Taxability of Externally Funded Research Projects
The appellant argued that the funds received for research projects were for academic purposes and not for providing services to the funders. The tribunal noted that the appellant, as a deemed university, conducts educational programs with a strong research focus involving students. The tribunal found that the focus on the "nexus" between funds and activity was not conclusive to establish a service. The appellant's objectives were academic, and the research projects formed part of the educational engagement. The tribunal held that the appellant did not provide a "service" u/s 65B(44) of the Finance Act 1994 to its funders and set aside the service tax demands.

Issue 3: Imposition of Penalties u/s 78
The tribunal observed that there was no "suppression" of facts by the appellant. The term "suppression" implies intentional non-disclosure with malafide intent, which was not evident in this case. The tribunal cited the Supreme Court judgment in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. Vs CCE Bombay and the CESTAT order in National Remote Sensing Agency Vs CCE Hyderabad-IV, noting that the appellant, governed by bureaucrats, scientists, and academicians, had no personal interest in evading tax. Therefore, the extended period of limitation and penalties u/s 78 were unjustifiable and were set aside.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed with consequential benefits, and all penalties were set aside. The tribunal pronounced the order in open court on 08.04.2024.

---