Page 169 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] NIRAJ PRASAD v. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., KANPUR 87
20. To appreciate this contention it would be appropriate to reproduce
the said notification which is as follows :-
“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 93 of the
Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, being satisfied that
it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts taxable service
provided to a client by any other person in relation to the business auxiliary ser-
vice, insofar as it relates to, -
(a) procurement of goods or services, which are inputs for the cli-
ent;
(b) production or processing of goods for, or on behalf of, the cli-
ent;
(c) provision of service on behalf of the client; or
(d) a service incidental or auxiliary to any activity specified in (a)
to (c) above,
and provided in relation to agriculture, printing, textile processing or educa-
tion from the whole of Service Tax leviable thereon under Section 66 of the Finance
Act :”
(emphasis supplied)
21. The only dispute between the parties is as to whether the taxable
service was provided in relation to education. The adjudicating authority has dealt
with this issue at some length. The relevant paragraphs have already been re-
produced in the earlier paragraphs of this order. The adjudicating authority has
drawn a distinction between the terms “training”, “coaching”; and “education”
and after noticing that education mainly involves three factors namely (i) the
process of teaching; (ii) the theory and practice of teaching and (iii) training in a
particular subject, the Commissioner observed that ‘education’ is different from
‘commercial training’ or ‘coaching’ since the word “education” is much broader
than “training”, or “coaching” and ultimately concluded that conducting a
course at a fairly high level can be termed as providing education. Thus, whatev-
er service the appellant was providing to the students on behalf of the client, in
the opinion of the adjudicating authority, cannot be considered as “education”.
22. It is not possible to accept the view taken by the adjudicating au-
thority. The appellant, as it clearly transpires from the agreement, was engaged
in the activity of preparing students not only for the entrance examination, but
also for academic courses, though at a higher level. Some of these courses related
to management courses, law courses, engineering courses etc. The issue that aris-
es for consideration is as to whether this activity is ‘in relation to education’. To
understand the meaning of the word “education”, it would be appropriate to
refer to dictionaries.
23. The Chambers Dictionary assigns the meaning to the word “educa-
tion” as follows :-
“Educate ed’u-kat, vt to bring up and instruct; to teach; to train. - n educa-
bil’ity - adj ed’ucable. - n educatabil’ity. - adj. ed’ucated having had a (good) ed-
ucation; cultivated, knowledgeable, refined in judgement or taste; (of a
guess) authoritative, backed by experience, to be accorded credence. - n ed-
uca’tion bringing up or training, e.g. of a child; instruction; strengthening of
the powers of body or mind; culture.” -

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  169