Service tax notices need clear statutory basis; the same service cannot be taxed again after tax is already discharged.

Service tax demands must rest on a clear statutory basis and identify the precise taxable category; notices that merely allege commercial coaching and training without proper classification or a legally sustainable charging foundation are fundamentally defective and cannot support the levy. Tax on the same service cannot be fastened again on another person once service tax has already been discharged on the relevant collections; on the record, the demand was unsustainable as double taxation of the same service. The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notices were vitiated for want of specific statutory basis and adequate particulars to support the service tax demand; (ii) whether the same service activity could be taxed again in the hands of the appellant when tax had already been discharged by MAAC on the course fee collections.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notices were vitiated for want of specific statutory basis and adequate particulars to support the service tax demand.

Analysis: The notices merely alleged that the appellant rendered commercial coaching and training services, but did not clearly identify the precise taxable service or the statutory definition under which the activity was sought to be classified. The first notice did not even invoke the charging provision in a legally sustainable manner. In the absence of the basic statutory foundation necessary to sustain the levy, the notices failed to give proper notice of the case to be met.

Conclusion: The show cause notices were fundamentally defective and the demand could not be sustained on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the same service activity could be taxed again in the hands of the appellant when tax had already been discharged by MAAC on the course fee collections.

Analysis: The record indicated that the course fees were collected in MAAC's account and that MAAC had discharged service tax on the relevant collections. The appellant's contention that it provided infrastructural support under the business arrangement remained consistent with the material on record. The Court also relied on the principle that a transaction or service cannot be subjected to service tax twice.

Conclusion: The demand amounted to taxation of the same service twice and was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A service tax demand cannot be upheld unless the show cause notice specifically discloses the statutory basis and taxable category invoked, and the same service cannot be taxed again in the hands of another person once tax has already been discharged on that service.

---