Case Law Details
Educational Initiatives Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court)
The writ-applicant claimed that the services provided by it to the schools/education organizations in relation to the ASSET examination is exempted from the payment of the GST under the Entry No. 66(b)(iv) of the Notification No.12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017 as well as the equivalent SGST under the Entry No.69(b)(iv) of the Notification No.9/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017.
The writ-applicant has entered into contracts with various schools to provide education upto the higher secondary school. The schools have made it mandatory for their students to take up the Assessment of Scholastic Skill Through Educational Testing (ASSET) exams, which are being conducted by the schools in their own premises and the marks obtained in the ASSET are considered and given due weightage to the students ASSET score in the semester and the final examination results. The writ-applicant would set and prepare the question papers which are either paper version or online version. The evaluation of the answers is done by the writ-applicant. The students are enrolled with the schools.
When the appellate authority says that the schools are not conducting the ASSET, or rather, the schools are facilitating the writ-applicant to conduct the ASSET, for which the schools get some remuneration towards the administration cost, it is thereby trying to erroneously convey that instead of the writ-applicant providing services to the schools, the schools are providing services to the writ-applicant, for which the schools receive ‘administration cost’.
Indisputably, the question papers are set by the writ-applicant and the answers given by the students are assessed by the writ-applicant and the result of the ASSET is also prepared by the writ-applicant. The basic nature of the ASSET service is an examination to be conducted by the Educational Institution (School) but outsourced to the Educational Initiatives (EI). The observations made by the AAR in para 21.1 of its order clinches the issue.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
