Service Tax for Commercial Coaching and Training Services cannot be taxed Twice by Different Parties: CESTAT allows Appeal [Read Order]
The appeal was allowed as the principle of double taxation for the same service activity is not in accordance with the law.
![Service Tax for Commercial Coaching and Training Services cannot be taxed Twice by Different Parties: CESTAT allows Appeal [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/05/18/2137319-service-tax-for-commercial-cestat-taxscan.webp "Service Tax for Commercial Coaching and Training Services cannot be taxed Twice by Different Parties: CESTAT allows Appeal [Read Order]")
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, allowed an appeal and held that service tax for commercial coaching and training services cannot be taxed twice by different parties. Also Read:Penalty for Fraudulently Obtaining EODC to fulfil Export Obligation Further Reduced: CESTAT Provides Relief [Read Order] Based on intelligence received...
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, allowed an appeal and held that service tax for commercial coaching and training services cannot be taxed twice by different parties.
Based on intelligence received that Synergy Envision Private Limited (SEPL), the appellant, was not registered with the Department and have not paid service tax or filed ST-3 returns on services that appeared to be covered under “Commercial Training and Coaching Service” (CTCS), the officers called for documents from the appellant. The Department was of the view that SEPL was receiving payments from MAAC, Mumbai for such services and thus the liability to pay service tax lies on SEPL and MAAC.
The Department then demanded short paid service tax for the period from April 2011 to June 2012 along with appropriate interest and proposed penalty. After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand with interest and penalties, the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals - II) rejected the appeals.
The counsel for the appellant appeared before the CESTAT to argue that the demand was premised on erroneously construing the Franchisee agreement which drew attention to the definition of franchise under Section 65 (47) of the Act. Additionally, it was submitted that the appellant had discharged the service tax on the entire taxable value that is on the 100% of the course fee prior to the disbursement of the franchise fee to the franchiser.
The bench of Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) relied on several case laws to hold that any service can be taxed only once, even if it appears to fall under two or more categories, so that service tax cannot be charged twice on the same service. Further, the appeal was allowed as the principle of double taxation for the same service activity is not in accordance with the law.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
