Page 171 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] NIRAJ PRASAD v. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., KANPUR 89
various courses conducted and remitting the same to the authorized training cen-
tre. The Tribunal held that the activities were incidental or ancillary to the pro-
motion of Information Technology Education of Maharashtra and, therefore,
would be exempted under the notification.
29. In the present case, apart from imparting some of the aforesaid ac-
tivities, the appellant is in fact also providing ‘education’ to the students and,
therefore, the principles enumerated in the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal will
apply with greater force in the present case.
30. The next alternative contention of the Learned Counsel of the appel-
lant is with regard to double taxation. It has been submitted that Career Launch-
er has a central registration with the Department and the premises of the appel-
lant are included in the Centralized registration. Service Tax has been paid on the
entire amount of fees deposited by the students. It has, therefore, been contended
that if the appellant is required to pay any Service Tax, it would amount to dou-
ble taxation, which is not permissible.
31. The adjudicating authority did not accept this contention of the ap-
pellant and the relevant paragraphs have been reproduced. According to adjudi-
cating authority, two separate services exist namely service provided by Career
Launcher as “commercial training and coaching service” and a separate service
as “business auxiliary service” provided by the appellant to Career Launcher.
32. We express our inability to accept view taken by the adjudicating
authority. Career Launcher has paid Service Tax on the entire amount of fees col-
lected from the students. It is on a revenue sharing basis, that part of this fee is
remitted to the appellant by Career Launcher. The appellant, therefore, cannot be
required to again pay Service Tax on this fee. As noticed above, in fact no service
is provided by the appellant to Career Launcher because in terms of the agree-
ment, the revenue is shared between Career Launcher and the appellant. In com-
ing to this conclusion reliance can be placed on the decision of the Tribunal in
M/s. Samadhan Systems Private Limited and the relevant paragraphs are repro-
duced below :-
“9. The admitted facts are that the appellants had Agreement with M/s.
MAAC. The said Agreement stipulates various obligations/responsibilities
of both the parties. The students who got admitted for the courses pay a
consideration, which is credited to M/s. MAAC in full. We have perused
the sample invoices. This fact cannot be disputed. The full consideration so re-
ceived by M/s. MAAC has been subjected to Service Tax under commercial train-
ing and coaching service. This has not been disputed. The fact that the premises in
which the training is carried out by the appellant is also listed for central registra-
tion to discharge Service Tax by MAAC is also not disputed. In such situation, it is
not clear as to how a Service Tax liability on the appellant can again be fastened on
the very same activity. We also note that the appellant do not receive any amount
from the service recipient as a consideration. The arrangement is that the gross
amount paid by the students is credited to MAAC on which Service Tax has been
discharged. It is clear that the appellant acts as an instrument in carrying out
the training programme which is designed and managed by the MAAC.
This is evident from the course completion certificate issued by MAAC on
completion of the course. We have perused the sample certificate issued in
this regard. The appellants name is nowhere figuring in the completion cer-
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  171