Institutions offering coaching for CA/CMA course are not exempted from GST: AAAR

Case Details: Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Andhra Pradesh Master Minds., In re - [2022] 138 taxmann.com 205 (AAAR-Andhra Pradesh)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Peeyush Kumar & Naresh Penumaka, Member
  • Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Adv. for the Applicant.

Facts of the Case

The appellant was a coaching institute providing coaching to students appearing for CA and CMA exams. It was not having any recognition or affiliation to ICAI or ICMAI. It filed an application for advance ruling to determine taxability of services provided to students. The Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) held that the appellant would not be eligible for the GST exemption under Entry No. 66 (a) of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 for services of coaching provided to students. It filed appeal against the order.

AAAR Held

The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling observed that the institute of appellant would run for specific purpose to cover subjects of prescribed syllabus for CA/CMA course and to prepare students appearing for various level of theoretical examinations for said qualification. The Chartered Accountants Act and Cost and Works Accountants Act would not recognize education or any degree, diploma or certificate as given by such institutes. The education imparted would not lead to obtaining qualification recognised by ICAI or ICMAI and therefore, the GST exemption can’t be claimed by the appellant as educational institution providing education as part of curriculum for obtaining qualification recognized by law.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Master Minds, In re [2020] 117 taxmann.com 824/39 GSTL 310/82 GST 167 (AAR – AP.) (para 5) affirmed.
  • Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 234 (SC)
  • Nidhi Kaim v. State of M.P. [2016] 7 SCC 615 (para 5) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Master Minds, In re [2020] 117 taxmann.com 824/39 GSTL 310/82 GST 167 (AAR – AP.) (para 1)
  • Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) v. Reliance Petroleum Ltd. 2008 taxmann.com 388 (SC) (para 2)
  • Kohinoor Elastics (P.) Ltd. v. CCE 2005 taxmann.com 1093 (SC) (para 2)
  • Compack (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2005] 8 SCC 300 (para 2)
  • Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) v. Malwa Industries Ltd. 2009 taxmann.com 321 (SC) (para 2)
  • Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar AIR 1963 SC 703 (para 2)
  • Sole Trustee, Lok Shikshana Trust v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 234 (SC) (para 2)
  • P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra [2005] 6 SCC 537 (para 2)
  • Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee v. CC, CE & ST [Final Order Nos. 30361-30365 of 2018, dated 24-1-2018] (para 2)
  • Share Medical Care v. Union of India 2007 taxmann.com 1364 (SC) (para 4)
  • Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., In re [2020] 115 taxmann.com 59/80 GST 199/34 GSTL 606 (AAAR – Kar.) (para 4)
  • CCE, ST & Cus. v. Tandem Integrated Services [C.E.A No. 3 of 2011, dated 14-12-2018] (para 4)
  • Malappuram District Parallel College Association v. Union of India [2006] 150 Taxman 624 (Ker.) (para 4)
  • Nidhi Kaim v. State of M.P. [2016] 7 SCC 615 (para 5).