Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2026 (6) TMI 1366

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated June 20, 2012, whereas the case of the Department is that it is not covered in the services specified in the exemption notification. For ready reference Entry 8 of the Notification reads as follows:- "Entry 8: Services by way of training or coaching in recreational activities relating to arts, culture, or sports." 2. Briefly stated, on the basis of intelligence, it was gathered that the appellant was providing taxable services but had not obtained service tax registration and therefore, were neither filing the ST-3 Returns nor paying the service tax. Having found that the appellant had intentionally and wilfully suppressed the facts of receipt of payment with intent to evade service tax, show cause notice dated May 23, 2018 was issued to the appellant proposing demand of service tax of Rs.2,58,56,903/- for the period from Financial Year 2013-14 to 2016-17 by invoking the proviso to section 73(1) of the Act along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the learned Commissioner confirmed the demand. Hence, the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case at length. 4. Ms. Shagun Arora, learned C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Company & Ors. [2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC)] (2) Tata Iron & Steel Co.Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand [2005) 4 SCC 272] (3) Novopanindia Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Hyderabad [1994 (73) ELT 769 (SC)] (4) M/s.L.R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd. [2020-TIOL-145-SC-Cus] (5) Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Ors. [(2011) 1 SCC 236 = 2010-TIOL-95-SC-CX-CB] 6. Having heard the parties at length, we find that the scope of controversy is limited to the interpretation of the term 'culture' under the exemption notification. Therefore, the first principle to be taken note of is that the exemption notification has to be read as it is and nothing can be added further to facilitate the applicability of exemption. In other words, the exemption notification has to be interpreted strictly which means that the activity is directly categorised therein and is not incorporated by way of implication. In this regard, we may refer to the decision in the case of Hansraj Gordhandas [1969(2) SCR 253] where the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that an exemption from taxation is to be allowed based on the language of the n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ure, music, film, are included in the broader definition of 'art'. Therefore, the term 'culture' has to be interpreted in the light of the preceding term 'art' used in the notification. These terms by no stretch of imagination would incorporate the activities relating to 'science',which is distinguishable. The submission of the learned Counsel that astronomy even though a science has always been part of Indian culture may be true in the broader perspective but the fact remains that the term 'culture' which has been used in the Notification has to be given a narrow interpretation particularly with reference to the other terms. Applying the principle of noscitur a sociis, which contemplates that a statutory term is recognized by its associated words, we are of the firm view that the term 'culture' cannot be extended to include the activity of astronomy. In the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board versus R. Rajappa & Ors. [(1978) 2 SCC 213] the Constitution Bench, (7J) (J. Jaswant Singh) of the Apex Court, with reference to the interpretation of the term 'industry' as contained in section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 observed that, "bearing in mind the collocati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....207): "Associated words take their meaning from one another under the doctrine of nosciture a sociis, the philosophy of which is that the meaning of a doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of words associated with it; such doctrine is broader than the maxim Ejusdem Generis." In fact the letter maxim "is only an illustration or specific application of the broader maxim noscitur a sociis". The argument is that certain essential features or attributes are invariably associated with the words "business and trade" as understood in the popular and conventional sense, and it is the colour of these attributes which is taken by the other words used in the definition though their normal import may be much wider. We are not impressed by this argument. It must be borne in mind that noscitur a sociis is merely a rule of construction and it cannot prevail in cases where it is clear that the wider words have been deliberately used in order to make the scope of the defined word correspondingly wider. It is only where the intention of the Legislature in associating wider words with words of narrower significance is doubtful, or otherwise not clear that the present rule of con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty that the appellant was not providing any service as mentioned above and was, therefore, not entitled to claim exemption benefit under Entry No.8 of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated June 20, 2012. 10. Coming to the next issue of invoking the extended period of limitation, the basic plea taken by the appellant is that they were under the bona fide belief that they were covered under the exemption notification and has relied on the decisions in that regard. As pointed out by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, we find that the appellant was not registered with the Service Tax Department and, therefore, did not file the Service Tax Returns though he was operating the coaching/training on commercial basis by charging fee for the course since long time but avoided the registration and filing of ST-3 Returns. In the circumstances, the Department is justified in invoking the extended period of five years. The Tribunal in the case of Bharathi Cellular Ltd versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2006(3) STR 423 (Tri.-Delhi)] considered such plea of the appellant that they were under the bonafide belief that the sale of SIM cards to the subscribers was not taxable and despite the fact that they had....