P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Kanhaiya Singh Vision Classes Private Limited vs. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Patna-I Commissionerate - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (18 May 2023)

Value of books cannot be included in the consideration for coaching services

MANU/CK/0080/2023

Service

The present appeal has been filed by Kanhaiya Singh Vision Classes Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant) being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original (OIO) passed by the Learned Adjudicating authority by which the demand of service tax of Rs. 3,71,52,384 for the period from April 2013 to 31st December, 2016 by invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the said Finance Act, 1994 was confirmed along with imposition of interest and equivalent penalty under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.

The Appellant is engaged in providing coaching services to the aspiring students for qualifying the competitive entrance examinations into the engineering/medical institutes and is thus registered under the service tax regime having registration.

The Adjudicating authority while passing the impugned OIO confirming the demand of tax with equivalent penalty, held that, the Appellant had bifurcated its revenues in to sale of publication income to pay less service tax on coaching services and that there were no documents provided by the Appellant to prove income from sale of books as a separate stream of income independent from coaching services. As regards figures taken from seized records to levy service tax ignoring the balance sheet figures, the Adjudicating authority was of the view that the Appellant has misdeclared values in audited balance sheet and thus, the computation of the department in the SCN was correct to levy service tax.

The short issue to be decided in the present case is whether income from sale of publication of books has to be added in the consideration for coaching services provided by the Appellant.

The issue is no longer res integra as the Tribunal in various decisions held that, the value of books cannot be included in the consideration for coaching services. Since the value of sale of books is separately identifiable from the audited financial statements of the Appellant and there are documents to show that such sale was also made not to the students but to third parties also, the question of levy of service tax on such value from sale of books/publication cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed.

Tags : DEMAND   PENALTY   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved