TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 884
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of the petitioner is that it is a vocational educational institute and is providing vocational education which is job-oriented. The institute is duly registered under the Service Tax Act, 1994. The petitioner-company states that it does not carry on business of purchase and sale of goods, and consequently has not opted for registration under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter "the 2003 Act"). The business of the petitioner-company is instead stated to be of appointing franchises in Rajasthan and across India charging a specific amount as franchise fee and royalty for service rendered not only for the use of its name and services but also for providing faculty, retraining of faculty, online registration and examinat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner stating therein that the main object of the petitioner was to provide technical education for which it was entering into written agreements with its affiliates for a specified period and in turn charging franchise fee and royalty, and that there was no tangible purchase and sale of goods. Only services were being provided for which the petitioner was paying service tax to the Central Excise and Customs Department. It was submitted that the petitioner-company could not be made liable for both service tax and value added tax on the same transaction. However not satisfied with the reply filed by the petitioner-company, the Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion Zone I, Jaipur, passed an assessment order dated April 18, 2012 und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvice tax was being paid to the Central Excise and Customs Department. It was submitted that the Commercial Tax Officer, Anti Evasion Zone I, Jaipur, had no authority in law to split the receipts from a composite business transaction by the petitioner-company into two parts, i.e., sale and service in view of the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 3 VST 95 (SC); [2006] 145 STC 91 (SC), and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner, VAT, Trade and Taxes Department v. International Travel House Ltd. [2009] 25 VST 653 (Delhi). It is stated that since the effective control and possession of the alleged goods made liable to tax by the Commercial Tax Officer alw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mental virtue of the administration of justice. Mr. Achintya Kaushik appearing on behalf of Mr. R.B. Mathur, counsel for the Department, would submit that the transaction between the petitioner-company and its affiliates is capable of being bifurcated into sale and service. He submits that in this view of the matter the petitioner-company is liable to pay tax in respect of its transactions in issue. It is submitted that consequently the appellate authority has rightly rejected the stay application relating to tax and interest. The contention of Mr. Kaushik that the transaction of the petitionercompany with its affiliates could be bifurcated between sale and service is not the reasoning adopted by the assessing officer and the appellat....