Case Details: Registrar, University of Kota Versus Commissioner, Central Goods Service Tax & Central Excise, Jodhpur (2025) 33 Centax 38 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
Ms. Binu Tamta, Member (J) and Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (T)
- Nidhesh Gupta, Vinod Shukla, Deepak Goel and Ms. S. Jananifor the Appellant.
- Ravindra Srivastava, Ranvir Chandra, Ms. Shilpa Singh and B.V. Balaram Das for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, a university established under a special enactment of the State Legislative Assembly, was engaged in providing educational services including the grant of affiliation to various self-financing and non-government colleges under its jurisdiction, in accordance with the education policy formulated by the State Government. It was observed by the jurisdictional officer under CGST that the appellant had collected affiliation and recognition fees without remitting service tax. A show cause notice was issued proposing recovery of service tax, interest, and penalty. Upon adjudication, the demand was confirmed. The appellant submitted that the activity of granting affiliation was carried out in the discharge of a statutory obligation and lacked any commercial element, and therefore did not constitute a taxable service. The appellant relied upon Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences v. ADG, DGGI (Karnataka) [(2024) 22 Centax 526 (Kar.)], wherein it was held that statutory universities performing functions under law do not carry on ‘activities for consideration’ as per Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore.
High Court Held
The CESTAT held that affiliation granted by a statutory university is an exercise of public duty mandated by law and does not involve any commercial component, thereby falling outside the scope of ‘activities carried on for consideration’ under Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994. Referring to the precedent in Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences v. ADG, DGGI (Karnataka) [(2024) 22 Centax 526 (Kar.)], the Tribunal concluded that income earned through such affiliation lacks the essential commercial character required to trigger service tax liability. It observed that universities created by statute are bound to perform such functions as part of their legislative mandate, and these actions do not resemble market-driven services rendered for profit. Accordingly, the order confirming the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty was set aside.
List Of Cases Cited
-
Devi Ahilya Vishwavidhyalaya (University) v. Commissioner — Final Order No. 50801/2025 dated 22.05.2025 by CESTAT, New Delhi — Relied [Para 4.2]
-
Goa University v. Joint Commissioner — (2025) 29 Centax 281 (Bom.) = 2025 (96) G.S.T.L. 513 (Bom.) — Relied [Para 4.2]
-
Jiwaji Vishwavidhyalaya v. Commissioner — 2025 (5) TMI 153-CESTAT NEW DELHI — Relied [Para 4.2]
-
Principal Additional Director General, DGGI v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences — (2025) 32 Centax 299 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 4.3]
-
Principal Commissioner v. Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya — Final Order No. 50698/2025, dated 16.-5-2025 by CESTAT, New Delhi — Relied [Para 4.2]
-
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences v. Principal Additional Director General, DGGI — (2024) 22 Centax 526 (Kar.) — Followed [Paras 4.2, 4.3]
-
Visvesvaraya Technological University v. Additional Director General, DGGI — (2024) 23 Centax 114 (Kar.) — Relied [Para 4.2]
