Case Law Details
A educational coaching is covered by the expression “coaching centre” as defined in section 65(26) and (27). That it is not on commercial basis or predominantly for profit is the only argument canvassed throughout. On some occasions in the past, it was accepted but after the insertion of the explanation even that is unavailable. Now, irrespective of profit motive and so long as such service is rendered for consideration, it falls within the purview of the tax.
An explanation has been inserted by Finance Act, 2010 and it says, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression “commercial training or coaching centre” occurring in this sub-clause and in clauses (26) and (27) and (90a) shall include any centre or institute, by whatever name called, where training or coaching is imparted for consideration, whether or not such centre or institute is registered as a Trust or a society or similar other organisation under any law for the time being in force and carrying on its activity with or without profit motive and the expression “commercial training or coaching” shall be construed accordingly.
Therefore, the explanation removes any doubts with regard to the nature of the activity and its character. There was a confusion whether such activity and commenced by any Trust or society, which has obtained registration under any statute such as the Bombay Public Trust Act, would be covered by the definition. There was a scope then for argument that those institutions or Trusts do not operate or function with a profit motive or with business generation in mind. Therefore, the legislature steps in and explains this definition as above. This amendment is inserted by the Finance Act, 2010 (14 of 2010) dated 8th May, 2010 with retrospective effect from 1st July, 2003. Pertinently, Mr. Anturkar does not challenge, by putting in issue, the power of the legislature to enact such a provision retrospectively. That the tax can be imposed by introducing such a provision or the general power to amend the statute with retrospective effect has not been questioned. Once the statute itself clarifies that the retrospective effect is from 1st July, 2003, then, we do not see any basis for the argument of Mr. Anturkar. Now, the essential feature or the intent, namely, to make profit or otherwise is wholly irrelevant. Pertinently, Mr. Anturkar does not dispute that the petitioner is coaching the students.
A educational coaching is covered by the expression “coaching centre” as defined in section 65(26) and (27). That it is not on commercial basis or predominantly for profit is the only argument canvassed throughout. On some occasions in the past it was accepted but after the insertion of the explanation even that is unavailable. Now, irrespective of profit motive and so long as such service is rendered for consideration, it falls within the purview of the tax.
Full Text of the High Court Judgment / Order is as follows:-
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
