Del. HC: Accrual of Cause of Action at a Place is not a Consideration for Determining Jurisdiction  ||  Mad. HC to State: Prevent use of Stickers such as ‘Police’ or ‘GOI’ on Private Vehicles  ||  Bom. HC: Magistrate Needn’t Provide Additional Reasons for Amount of Interim Compensation Awarded  ||  Del. HC: ‘THEOBROMA’ is Free to Expand its Outlets Across the Country  ||  Ker. HC: Detention Order Under KAPPA 2007 must be Confirmed Within 3 Months from Date of Execution  ||  Kar. HC: Not Every False Statement Made in Court Must be Subject to Prosecution  ||  Ker. HC: Roads are Ordinarily Deserted During Night; Likelihood of Causing Death by Accident is Less  ||  Del. HC: Severity of Offence Can’t Disentitle Foreigner to Get Parole for Filing SLP  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Compound Proceedings u/s 138 NI Act at Revision Stage Without Complainant’s Consent  ||  Bom. HC: There Should be Some Accountability Fixed on Courts in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration    

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



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.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved