Page 122 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

336 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
providing the education services on behalf of the University under the distance
learning programme. The students are enrolled under the University only and
the fees for the courses are directly paid to the University. The degree recognised
by law is also granted by the University. The premises, recruitment of the re-
source personnel, conduct of the course and the requisite infrastructure support
is to be provided by them in pursuance of the specific terms of the agreement.
They in turn receive a share of the fees from the University which are their in-
come.
4.(ii) He submitted that their case is squarely covered by the decesion
of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata v. Six Sigma Edu-
com & Others [2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 199 (Tri. - Kolkata)] wherein the Departmental
appeal was dismissed. He pointed out to Para 6 of the said decision wherein the
Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the appeal of
assessee had relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Kera-
la in the case of Malappuram Distt. Parallel Colleges Association v. Union of India
[2006 (2) S.T.R. 321 (Ker.)] [followed by the Tribunal in the cases of M/s. JMC Ed-
ucational Trust v. CCE, Trichy - 2011-TIOL-410-CESTAT and Trichy Institute of
Management Studies (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Trichy, 2011-TIOL-1521-CESTAT] where it is
observed that service tax in respect of the infrastructure support facility and ser-
vices incidental thereto is not attracting the levy of service tax especially when
the University is approved by the UGC, DEC & AICTE.
4.(iii) He further submitted that the impugned demand of service tax
has been levied under the head “Support Service of Business and Commerce” as
defined in Section 65(104c)/Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994, for the peri-
od prior to the negative list regime. He invited our attention to the fact that the
Ld. Adjudicating Authority in Para 9.4 has agreed that the Learning Centres run
by appellant were indeed for providing services of educational training or coach-
ing programmes and such services were essential part of the courses by the rec-
ognised University that lead the student to obtain degree recognised under law.
It is also his submission that the services are principally education services. The
infrastructural support and other activities carried on by the appellant are purely
incidental to carrying out the principal activity of imparting education through
the distance mode of learning.
4.(iv) He further submitted that once a service has been specifically ex-
cluded from a legislated service category, the Department cannot levy tax on
such excluded category of services under any other service head. He relied on
the following judicial decisions :-
• Dr. Lal Path Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of C. & Ex., Ludhiana [2006 (4)
S.T.R. 527 (Delhi)]
• Commr. of C. & Ex., Ludhiana v. Dr. Lal Path Lab Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (8)
S.T.R. 337 (P & H)]
• Federal Bank Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Cus. & ST (Appeals) [2009 (15)
S.T.R. 279 (Tri. - Bang.)]
• Federal Bank Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Cochin [2010 (18) S.T.R. 62 (Tri. -
Bang.)]
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  122