2013 (8) TMI 782

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice raised against the appellant was initially dropped by the Addl. Commissioner. However, Revenue not being satisfied with the said order of the Addl. Commissioner filed an appeal their against before the Commissioner (Appeals), who reversed the order. Hence, the present appeal along with stay petition. 3. It is seen that the appellant entertained an arrangement with M/s. Maya Academy of Advanced Cinematics (MAAC) for coaching and providing commercial training to various students. It is seen that MAAC has discharged the entire service tax on the value of the services so provided by them. However, Revenue has raised demand against the appellant on the ground that they are also beneficiary of the said services. 4. While dealing with th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ally as they are not doing all these activities at their own but they are doing under an arrangement. Considering the facts of the agreement and work undertaken by both of the parties, I hold that M/s. MAAC and SSPL are jointly providing commercial coaching to the students and SSSPL alone is not providing service to the students independently. Accordingly, I hold that M/s. SSPL is not liable to pay service tax. I also find that the person liable to pay service tax is MAAC, who have obtained centralized registration, {which includes the establishment/coaching centre managed by SSPL} and paying service tax. My views also get supports from the Board's Circular - para no. 2.2 of Circular No. 109/03/2009, dated 23-2-2009, which reads as under:- ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and SSPL are two different entities and MAAC can not pay service tax on behalf of SSPL, I find that there is no dispute that the commercial coaching services have been provided by two persons jointly. The service have been provided once, amount of service tax have been collected once and service tax have been paid by MAAC, the service tax can not be demanded from SSPL for the same transaction/service for the second time legally. I also observe that in the strict legal sense double taxation mean taxing the same property or subject matter twice. In the instant case, demanding service tax from SSPL on the taxable value on which service tax have already been paid by MAAC under the same service would definitely lead to double taxation. As regard....