TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p model under the Central Government's policy to set up institutes of Advanced Technology. The appellant is a deemed university conducting recognised educational programs with a strong research focus in which students are involved in research as part of the educational programs. Mastering science by research is a recognised degree awarded by the appellant. The appellant provides opportunities to the students to learn by way of research in collaboration with industry, in addition to classroom lectures. 3. The present controversy is about taxability of its research projects and one of its educational programs. Revenue initiated enquiry and verified the returns and records of the appellants which culminated in issue of show cause notice in October 2018. The show cause notices were adjudicated on contest vide separate Orders-in-Original as mentioned hereinabove with confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty. 4. The surviving issues in the present appeals are mainly two: i) whether the fees charged to students in the post graduate student status program (PGSSP) offered by the appellant attracted service tax (in appeal No. ST/30009/2020) ii) whether externally funded researc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... name of all inventors from both parties. Neither the RSP nor triple IT will have any rights to the patents. Thus it is apparent that the results of the research, IPR et cetera remains with the sponsors and IIIT does not have exclusive rights over the subject of research and results of the research/consultancy projects. 5.3 Similarly the fund of Rs. 2,76,000 granted by the DRDO project - LBCT, specifies that IIIT have obligation to carry out a particular research namely theoretical study and stimulation design of laser beam combination techniques: and to submit the research report to DRDO. 6. It appeared to revenue that the ground/amounts are linked with deliverables which is specified. In most cases the appellant are required to maintain separate no lien account, which was liable to be inspected by the funder at any time. In most cases the fund was required to be kept in bank account earning interest and such interest accrued would be treated as credit to the appellant which may be adjusted/reduced in the quantum of subsequent grants. In some of the projects the method in which the project is to be carried out and also the target groups are specified. 7. In respect of all proje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....recognised by UGC as a deemed to be university, hence it is an educational institution: its services to its students, including permitting PGSSP students to attend regular degree courses, are held exempted. 10. We now take up the issue of whether research funding was taxable. The appellant states that it is an educational institution and was the first autonomous IIIT set up under the non-profit public-private mode to foster advanced technology in terms of the central government policy. Its governing council includes senior civil servants including the Principal Secretary of the state, eminent academicians from all over the country and representatives of the information technology industry. It is a deemed university conducting educational programs leading to degrees recognised by the UGC. The education provided has a strong research focus in which students are involved in the research projects as part of the educational programs. The appellant seeks and receives funding for research projects from various government as well as non-governmental agencies. It published scholarly papers based on the research projects. These facts are not disputed by the department. 11. The appellant fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the reasoning in the order impugned under Appeal No. ST/30009/2021 and vehemently argued that if funding is for a specific project, this is a service to the funder, regardless of who proposed the project. The requirement of 'utilisation certificate' and other conditions to ensure the use of the funds for the purpose for which they were released, showed the nexus between the funds and the activity and thereby that activity was a service to the funder. 13. As regards penalties, the Learned AR supported the penalty under Section 78 in Appeal No. ST/30082/2020, stating that intent to evade tax was not a necessary ingredient and that non-disclosure by itself justified penalty under the rubric of "suppression of facts". The Learned Consultant for the appellant argued that the term "suppression" by itself means intentional non-disclosure and carries an element of malafide. She drew support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. Vs CCE Bombay [1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC)] to contend that any omission is not suppression. She also relied upon the order of the CESTAT in National Remote Sensing Agency Vs CCE Hyderabad-IV, wherein she states that though the service t....