2018 (8) TMI 1231

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing or coaching service for purpose of charging service tax and to restrain respondent Nos.1 to 3 from charging or recovering any service tax, interest and penalty on the charges recovered towards educational programmes conducted by the petitioner. 2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that on 02.08.2005 he received a letter from respondents demanding for document/accounts for the period from the academic period 2003-04 for the purpose of verification of applicability of commercial training or coaching service and discharge of service tax by the petitioner. On 11.0 8.2005, petitioner filed the reply explaining that the petitioner is an educational institution and intention of the Government is not to bring education under category o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....usive of education cess for the period from 01.07.2003 to 31.08.2008 on IBA under the proviso to Sections 73(1) and 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and also confirmed the demand of interest at appropriate rate under the provision of Section 75 of the Finance Act on IBA in respect of Service Tax amount demanded and also imposed penalty Rs. 10,000/- each under the provisions of 77(1)(a) and 77(2) of the Finance Act 1994. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the par ties at lis. 4. Sri. B.G. Chidananda Urs, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugn ed order passed by the 1st respondent is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. The same cannot be sust....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....end that on verification of records, it was found that the petitioner is a business school offering PGDBM programme, a management education programme. The petitioner conducts two years full time programme in management education leading to award of PG diploma in PBDBM, PGPM and PGPRM programmes and he was not registered under the Service Tax for the service of commercial training and coaching and also not discharging Service Tax towards the same. Therefore, he is liable to pay the tax as rightly demanded by issuing show cause notice and passing the impugned order. He would further contend that the notice was issued on 20.10.2008, the case was placed in call book as per the existing CB instruct ions and on placing the case in call book, subs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respondents that he is running professional courses without recognition by any competent authority and it is nothing but commercial coaching and training service. Therefore, petitioner is liable to pay Service Tax. The fact remains that from the date of issue show cause notice and impugned order, there is a gap of 8 years. Same is un- explained and there is no reasons assigned in the impugned order. In view of the inordinate gap between the show cause notice and the impugned order, the Commissioner was not justified in passing the impugned order without providing proper opportunity of personal hearing. It was for the Commissioner of Service Tax to provide reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put forth all his contentions in reply to....