Ker HC to Municipal Corp.: Provide Complaint No. to Citizens to Report Unauthorized Waste Dumping  ||  JKL HC: Can’t Fastened Liability Based on Chief Exam. Without Affording Opportunity to Cross Examine  ||  Ker HC to State: Consider Representation by CBSE Schools Assoc. Against Proposed Fee Regulatory Comm.  ||  Ker. HC: Printing Agencies Required to Remove Illegal Hoardings Within 7 Days of Notice  ||  Cal. HC: Police Can’t Use Power U/S 160 CrPC to Call/Arrest Someone Unconnected With Alleged Offence  ||  Cal. HC: Acquiring Property in Name of Wife is Not Benami Transaction  ||  Bombay HC Upholds Validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of IGST Act  ||  Del. HC: Haj Pilgrimage is a Religious Practice  ||  SC: If Sufficient Evidence of Involvement Exists, Person Not Named in FIR can be Added as Accused  ||  SC: Possessory Right of Prospective Purchaser Protected U/S 53A of TP Act    

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