Page 172 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

90 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
tificate. All these facts will indicate that MAAC is overall managing and the
commercial coaching and training service suffered tax at their hands.
10. We also perused the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Aurangabad in
a similar set of facts though with reference to another business partner of
MAAC. The issue was examined in detail in the said order. It was conclud-
ed that no Service Tax liability will arise on the business partner of MAAC
under commercial coaching and training service.”
(emphasis supplied)
33. The last alternative contention of the Learned Counsel for the ap-
pellant, is that the Department cannot be permitted to discriminate between var-
ious assessees inasmuch as in the case of certain assessees, relating to same is-
sues, a view was taken that training centres like the appellant will not be re-
quired to pay Service Tax under the category of “business auxiliary service”, if
Service Tax has been paid on the entire amount by the agencies with whom the
agreement has been entered into.
34. There is considerable force in the submission advanced by the
Learned Counsel for the appellant. A bare perusal of the order passed by Com-
missioner (Appeals) in Appeal No. 287 on 25 October, 2012 reveals that the de-
mand of Service Tax under the category of “business auxiliary service” by a simi-
larly situated assessee has been set aside. The relevant portion of the order con-
tained in Paragraphs 4.2 and 4.2.1 of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)
are reproduced below :-
“4.2 …… Thus, the amount of Rs. 3,45,18,649/- received by the appellant
from M/s. CLI, on which the department has demanded the service tax, is
nothing but a part of the entire transaction of Rs. 5,22,67,103/- on which the
Service Tax has already been paid by M/s. CLI. It is clear from the docu-
ments on record that the Service Tax has been paid on the entire amount i.e.
the tax to be paid by M/s. CLI as well as by the appellant stands paid. It is
also on record that CLI have obtained centralized registration for payment
of Service Tax and the Professional Learning Centres at Agra & Bareilly
were included in the said centralized registration. I also find that it is not
the case of the department that M/s. CLI has not paid the service tax on the
entire fee collected at Agra & Bareilly centres. Keeping this in view the de-
mand of Service Tax on the same transaction under the category of ‘Busi-
ness Auxiliary Service‘ is not sustainable……..
4.2.1 Further, I also observe that in Allahabad Commissionerate, the de-
partment has accepted such type of certificates where M/s. CLI, New Delhi
had already discharged the service tax on the entire fee collected from dif-
ferent centers and on that basis they dropped the recovery proceedings of
the show cause notices adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner, Central Ex-
cise, Allahabad vide Order-in-Original No. (ST-179/2010) 63 of 2011 and
No. (ST-181/2010) 65 of 2011 both dated 4-5-2011. The said orders have
been accepted by the department, as reported by Assistant Commissioner
(Review), Central Excise, Allahabad vide letter C. No. V (3) Re-
view/455/2011 8505, dated 6-8-2012.”
35. A perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that M/s. Unitel Educa-
tion was running a professional learning centre of Career Launcher and under an
agreement dated 24 March, 2004, Career Launcher paid Service Tax on the entire
fees received from the students. The Department, however, intended to levy Ser-

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  172