No Service Tax on Not for profit organizations: CESTAT

Refined or white sugar, imported upto 31st December 2010 exempted from Customs duty-Customs Tariff Notification No.8 excise exemption notification for Jammu & Kashmir modified-Central Excise Tariff Notification No.1 Air India may lower retirement age to 55 to cut cost Board of Approval to decide fate of denotification of Essar's Hazira SEZ on 11th February Revenue's comments on 1st Discussion Paper on GST-click on the link below for details SC rules service of notice on the assessee under Section 143(2) within the prescribed period of time is a pre-requisite for framing the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961-AIT-2010-43-SC HC rules assessee is entitled to benefit under Income Tax on delayed payment of PF if the payment is made before the return is filed-AIT-2010-42-HC Authority for Advance Ruling rules the amount received by the foreign company from the Government of Tamil Nadu under the contract is essentially in the nature of “fees for technical services” within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Article 12.4 of DTAA and cannot be regarded as consideration for the sale of designs and drawings-AIT-2010-38-AAR Authority for Advance Ruling rules payment received by the applicant from VARs (“third party re-sellers”) on account of supplies of software products to the end-customers (from whom the licence fee is collected and appropriated by VAR) does not result in income in the nature of royalty to the applicant and moreover payments received by the applicant cannot be taxed as business profits in India in the absence of permanent establishment as envisaged by Article 7 of the India-Japan Tax Treaty-AIT-2010- 36-AAR lending or borrowing money between two associated enterprises comes within the ambit of international transaction and whether the same is at arms length price has to be considered-The question of rate of interest on the borrowing loan is an integral part of arms length price redetermination in this context-AIT-2010-37-ITAT Export and Import of Currency-RBI Circular No.30 HC rules a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable for questioning reopening of the assessment in a case such as this where the preconditions for the exercise of the power have not been fulfilled-recourse to the power under Section 147 cannot be sustained on a mere change of opinion, there being no failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts necessary for assessment-AIT-2010-35-HC Definitive Anti dumping duty imposed on import of Carbon Black used in rubber applications falling under sub heading 2803 00 10, originating in, or exported from, Australia, China PR, Russia and Thailand-Customs Tariff Notification No.6 Tariff Value for import of Brass scrap is 3597 and for poppy seeds 4392-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 10 Adjustment of “Advance Tax in respect of Fringe Benefits” for Assessment Year 2010-11 against “Advance Tax”-Income Tax Circular No.2 CBDT clarifies it is the choice of the assessee whether to file an objection before the Dispute Resolution panel against the draft assessment order or not to exercise this option and file an appeal later before CIT (Appeals) against the assessment order passed by the AO

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

No Service Tax on Not for profit organizations: CESTAT

AIT News Network

MUMBAI. A recent ruling AIT-2008-11-CESTAT of Customs Excise & Service Tax Tribunal has come as a mega relief for Not for Profit Organizations providing service of training or coaching.

According to the Tribunal such organizations are not a commercial concern and the training or coaching provided by GLIM is not a commercial activity and thus not liable to service tax.

The Institute in question conducts Post Graduate Programme in Management (PGPM), a 12 months fulltime programme and Executive MBA, a part time course. GLIM has academic and research collaborations with Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Yale University, USA and Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Following investigation into the activities of GLIM, the department came to a tentative conclusion that GLIM is a “commercial training or coaching centre” for the purpose of Finance Act, 1994 . It appeared to be an establishment providing commercial training or coaching for imparting knowledge or lessons on any subject or field other than sports as defined in clause 26 of Section 65 of the Act. The diploma/degree issued by GLIM is not recognized by law. All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) has not recognized the institute. It was observed that during the year 2004-05 GLIM had earned excess income over expenditure of Rs. 84,41,777/- and had transferred Rs. 80 lakhs to its infrastructure project fund. After due process of law, the Commissioner (Service Tax) vide his order in original No. 14/07 dated 30.04.07, concluded that GLIM imparted commercial training or coaching as defined in Section 65(26) of the Act. He found that the institute being a licensee under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and being granted the status of a public charitable trust under the Income Tax Act, 1961 did not alter the character and classification of service provided by the institute. The institute was a “not for profit” organization under the Income Tax Act. But that fact was not relevant for the Finance Act 94. He also rejected the plea of the institute that it was “a vocational training institute” as the institute did not impart training which equipped the students with any particular skill to take up a vocation like typing or tailoring. He demanded from GLIM service tax of Rs.1,44,05,390/- and education cess of Rs. 2,39,112/- on a value of Rs. 14,70,51,997/- for the training or coaching service provided by it during the period 1/4/04 to 31/7/06. He also imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 and penalty equal to the service tax demanded under Section 78 of the Act. The order also demanded interest on the service tax demanded in terms of Section 75 of the Act.

The CESTAT has ruled as under:

“The provision of education by an institution will attract service tax only if the institution is a commercial concern. A commercial concern is run with the sole object of making profit. In the case of the appellants, no individual gains any profit by its operations. The MOA clearly spells out that no income earned by the company shall be paid by way of dividend, bonus or otherwise by way of profit to any member of the company or to anybody else through the members. If any surplus remains when the company is wound up, it shall be transferred to another institution run for the same object as the company or for some charitable object. These facts indicate that GLIM is not a commercial concern and therefore, training or coaching rendered by it is not liable to service tax as “commercial training or coaching”.

Though the appellants earned some surplus income from the activity of imparting education, we hold that activity they are engaged in is predominantly one of public utility benefiting eligible youth thereby sub-serving a much larger interest of providing useful talents to the industry and ultimately the economy of the country. No individual is gaining any monetary benefit out of the activity of GLIM.

Healthcare and education are social services essential to provide minimum quality of life to the people of a country. As the demand for these services cannot be met by the Public Sector alone, private sector fills the gap. For most of them in the private sector, health & education are lucrative business. However, we find that education in the instant case is not a business. The primary object of GLIM is to impart education. Profit making is not its main motive. The refrain of the several judicial authorities cited is that profit motive characterizes a commercial concern as against general public utility in the case of a charitable organization. Therefore GLIM is not a commercial concern and the training or coaching provided by GLIM is not a commercial activity. “

(Click here for full text of ruling AIT-2008-11-CESTAT)

· Industry Associations not liable to Service Tax on Membership fees

· Service Tax Circular denying Credit on Outward Freight is not legally sustainable

· Landlords bowled out by Tenants on Service Tax liability

· Commercial Renting under service tax net from 1st June 2007

· Centralised Registration of Service Tax Liberalised

· Credit of Service Tax paid on Cellular Bill is admissible

· Government extends refund of service tax paid by exporters

· Exporters allowed refund of service tax on specified services

· E-payment of service tax