News Update

GST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCGST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Notorious history-sheeter Mukhtar Ansari succumbs to cardiac arrest in UP jailTraining Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieNY imposes USD 15 congestion taxCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silver45 killed as bus races into ravine in South AfricaCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayBankman-Fried jailed for 25 yrs in FTX scamI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesI-T- Secured creditor has priority charge over secured asset, over claims of I-T Department & other Departments; any excess amount recovered by Secured Creditor from auction of secured asset, over & above the dues payable to it, are to be remitted to the Departments: HCFederal Govt hands out USD 60 mn to rebuild collapsed bridge in BaltimoreI-T - Receipts of sale of scrap being part & parcel of activity and being proximate thereto would also be within ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB: HCCanadian School Boards sue social media titans for 4 bn Canadian dollar in damagesI-T - Once assssee on year of reversal has paid taxes on excess provision and similar feature appeared in earlier years and assesee had payments for liquidated damages on delay of deliverables, no adverse inference can be drawn: HCFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerST - Software development service & IT-enabled service provided by assessee was exempt from tax during relevant period, by virtue of CBEC's Notification & Circular; demands raised for such period not sustainable: CESTATUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayCus - Order rejecting exporter's request for conversion of Shipping Bills on grounds that the same has been made by exporter beyond period of three months from date of Let Export Order in terms of CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Cus : CESTATIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEACus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTATThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCX - As per settled law, a right acquired as result of a statutory provision, cannot be taken away retrospectively unless said statutory provision so provides or by necessary implication has such effect: CESTAT
 
ST - Respondents not providing service to trainees but to central/state government - classifiable under BAS and exempted under 14/2004-ST: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JUNE 27, 2017: THIS is a Revenue appeal.

It is the contention of the AR that the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the scope of issue by deciding the service classification of the assessee without adducing evidence. Inasmuch as the respondent had registered under Commercial Training & Coaching Services but subsequently sought to change the classification of the services to Business Auxiliary Service and claimed exemption in terms of notification no. 14/2004-STbased on a letter dated JS(TRU) to JS(Rural Department) vide DO letter no. 34/164/2011-TRU dated 26.07.2011 wherein it is clarified that training under centrally sponsored schemes are exempted.

The AR also emphasized that there is a specific clarification issued by Director (Service Tax) in the respondent's own case vide letter no. F.No. 137/02/2011-Service tax dated 10.05.2011 wherein opposite views have been expressed.

Moreover, the refund claim had been filed on 05.09.2011 after a lapse of eight years and, therefore, is barred by limitation, the AR added.

It was further argued that notification 14/2004-S.T. provides exemption only if the activity is in relation to agriculture, printing, textile processing or education; that the Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly interpreted the term Education; that the nature of course conducted/ service provided by the claimant such as repairing of air conditioner, agri-tourism, aquarium making, dairy milk, milk products making, electric motor rewinding, chalk and candle making are all related to skill development to earn livelihood and, therefore, do not come under the category of education.

The respondent submitted that they are a programme implementing agency working at the behest of Government of Maharashtra through MSFC, MSSIDC with a view to encourage entrepreneurship; that they are working under centrally sponsored schemes through various ministries and departments of government of India and state; that they are not providing any service to the trainee but they are providing training to the trainees on behalf of the central/state government, therefore, their services fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Service.

The Bench observed that the following three issues are needed to be decided -

i) If the service provided by the respondent is covered under Commercial Training & Coaching Services or Business Auxiliary Service.

ii) If the appellants are entitled to benefit of notification 14/2004-S.T. dated 10.09.2004

iii) If the refund claim is barred by limitation.

And held as under -

++ The fact that the respondent are not providing any service to the trainee but they are providing service to central/state government, it is apparent the service provided by them is correctly classified under Business Auxiliary Service, as service provided on behalf of their client. It is seen that order in original itself classifies the services as Business Auxiliary Service.

++ Insofar as benefit of notification 14/2004-S.T. is concerned it is seen that the same is available only if the activity is undertaken in relation to agriculture, printing, textile processing or education. …it is seen that the definition includes training as a component of education. It is seen that the activities conducted by the respondent are in nature of training for a particular purpose like repairing of air conditioner, agri-tourism, aquarium making etc. In these circumstances, it cannot be denied that these activities are related to education. Thus the benefit of notification 14/04-S.T. cannot be denied to the respondent.

++ Insofar as third issue on limitation is concerned, it is seen that the same is not challenged by the review order.

Concluding that there is no merit in the Revenue appeal, the same was dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-2181-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023