2024-VIL-1234-CESTAT-BLR-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax – Classification of service - Export of Service, Project Implementation Agency, Modular Employable Skill Course - appellant provided services such as development and export of E-Learning Courses to Focus Care Inc. of USA, Advance Tech Enterprises, UAE for online tutoring, and also acting as a Project Implementation Authority in implementing Skill Development Programmes of Government of India in various States - Whether the services rendered by the appellant, such as development and export of E-Learning Courses and provision of tutors for online tutoring, are in the nature of "Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval Service" or export of service under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Rule 9(b) of the POPS Rules, 2012 - HELD - the services rendered by the appellant, such as development and export of E-Learning Courses and provision of tutors for online tutoring, do not fall within the scope of "Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval Service" as they do not involve merely automated web-based services that require minimal human intervention - the e-learning courses developed by the appellant involve analysis, designing, scripting and testing, and are interactive in nature, and therefore cannot be equated with mere access to online information and data. Similarly, the online tutoring services provided by the appellant to Advance Tech Enterprises, UAE, involve interaction between the tutors and the students, and hence cannot be considered as "Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval Service". Consequently, the said services constitute export of service under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed - Whether the services rendered by the appellant under the "Sant Shiromani Ravidas High Skill Development" programme for Scheduled Caste on behalf of the Government of Gujarat is liable to service tax - HELD - The appellant was only acting as a project implementation agency for the State Government under a centrally sponsored scheme, and therefore, as per the CBEC Circular No. 125/7/2010-ST dated 30.07.2010, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax on the amounts received for implementing the project. Further, the training imparted by the appellant under the said programme was an "approved vocational education course" as defined under Section 65B(11)(ii) of the Finance Act, 1994, and therefore covered by the Negative List of services under Section 66D(1) of the said Act, and hence no service tax was payable - Whether the income reflected as 'other receipts' in the appellant's balance sheet, which the appellant claimed to be from trading activity of fabrics, is liable to service tax -HELD - the appellant had disclosed the fact that the 'other receipts' in its financial statements relate to purchase and sale of fabrics, a trading activity, in its initial statement recorded by the Department during the investigation. The appellant had also provided financial statements, invoices and a Chartered Accountant's certificate confirming the same. In the absence of any evidence from the Department to rebut the appellant's claim, the income from 'other receipts' cannot be considered as consideration for rendering of services, and hence not liable to service tax – there is no merit in the order of the learned Commissioner confirming the demand on ‘other receipts’ considering the same as rendering of services by the appellant.

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page