Page 164 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

82 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
Prasad, the “Service Provider” appears to be squarely covered under the
‘Business Auxiliary Services’.”
7. The contention of the appellant that it was entitled to claim exemp-
tion under the Notification dated 10 September, 2004 was also rejected by the
adjudicating authority for the reason that though the exemption is provided in
relation to the field of education, but the appellant was not engaged in the field
of education. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below :-
“I find that education is actually a process, which is attributed to the devel-
opment of human personality. Education is overall development of body,
mind, and intellect, whereas the training and coaching are narrow in scope
and possess specific purpose. The training and coaching is designed to
achieve a specific target. In the modern word coaching or training for
achieving specific target has got vide acceptance and has been adopted as a
business profession and that is why the same has been brought under the
tax net. Therefore, in my opinion, education is different from commercial
training or coaching, and the word education is much broader than train or
coach. I am of the view that all institutions imparting knowledge and con-
ducting courses at fairly high level, immaterial whether the degrees offered
by them are recognized by law or not, can be termed as providing educa-
tion.
Therefore, on the basis of the above distinction, it is evident that whatever
the party was providing to the students on behalf of their client cannot be
considered as ‘education’ by any stretch of imagination. The courses offered
by them were of the nature of providing training and coaching to the stu-
dents for competitive examinations. I do not agree with the above plea tak-
en by the party that the coaching centers run by them on behalf of M/s. Ca-
reer Launcher were relating to imparting education and therefore, are ex-
empted from payment of Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Services in
view of the exemption granted by Notification No. 14/2004-S.T., dated
10-9-2004.”
8. The plea of double taxation was also rejected by the adjudicating au-
thority for the reason that though Career Launcher may have been paying Ser-
vice Tax on the entire amount deposited by the appellant under the category of
“commercial training and coaching”, but the appellant was also providing a ser-
vice on behalf of Career Launcher and was paid for it as a result of which this
service would be covered under the definition of “business auxiliary service”.
The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below :-
“The submission of the party regarding taxing the same amount, twice i.e.
once in the hands of client (M/s. CL) and secondly in the hands of the party
appears attractive and convincing at the first instance, but is devoid of sub-
stance. Considering the contention of the party that the amount of Service
Tax payable on the gross value of the taxable services has already been paid
by M/s. Career Launcher, I observe that M/s. Career Launcher are regis-
tered with the Service Tax department for providing of ‘Commercial Train-
ing and Coaching service’ which are taxable as per Section 65(105)(zzc) of
the Finance Act, 1994. I find that M/s. Career Launcher had themselves
classified the services rendered by them under the category “Commercial
Training and Coaching service” and had taken Registration from the Ser-
vice Tax department, and had regularly been paying Service Tax on the col-
lections received as fees from the students under the CTC services only.
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  164