2018 (9) TMI 760

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urges only the following two questions of law for consideration : (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Tribunal correct in holding that the extended period of limitation is not invokable? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Tribunal justified in setting aside the demand for extended period and consequently penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994? 3. The Respondent-Assessee is a public charitable trust registered with the Charitable Commissioner, Pune under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act and also exempted from tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Respondent renders the service of imparting education. 4. It was the understanding of the Respo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 78 of the Act. This on the ground that the issue whether a charitable institution could be brought to tax under the Act was a debatable issue and finally came to be resolved by the Tribunal in Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee (SCEC) Vs. the Commissioner Customs and Service Tax, Guntur 2016(41) STR 241. In fact the impugned order dated 10th July 2015 does record the fact that there was a difference of opinion amongst members constituting the Division Bench in Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee (supra) on the issue of charitable institution being chargeable to service tax under the head Commercial Training or Coaching. Thus, it had referred the issue to a third member who while holding that even charitable institution rendering the serv....