Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations v. Commissioner, CGST Delhi East & Ors.
Background
Following an anti-evasion inspection, a consolidated SCN for July 2017–November 2023 demanded GST of about Rs. 20.90 crore on affiliation, registration, documentation, licence and late fees, invoking Section 74 for July 2017–August 2018. The first appellate authority dropped documentation charges, late entry fees and licence fees, and regularised affiliation fees up to 17.06.2021 under Circular 234/28/2024-GST. It upheld tax on affiliation fees after 18.06.2021 and on annual and late registration charges for the whole period, with Section 74 and penalties. Eight issues were framed in CISCE’s appeal.
Final Verdict
The Tribunal held that a consolidated SCN covering several years is not invalid without demonstrable prejudice. Applying Dilip Kumar & Co. (strict construction of exemptions) and distinguishing High Court rulings on statutory universities, since CISCE is a registered society, it held that affiliation, including processing and form charges, is an independent taxable supply and not a service “relating to admission to, or conduct of examination” under Entry 66(b)(iv). Annual and late registration charges were likewise held taxable and outside the regularisation in Circular 234/28/2024-GST, whose challenge was rejected.
In CISCE’s favour, it held that since no tax was separately collected, the amounts received must be treated as cum-tax under Rule 35, and that, the respondent having called for and received details in 2023, fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression was not established. The demand for July 2017–August 2018 (Rs. 1,29,60,720) was therefore set aside as time-barred, together with its interest and penalty. Demands for September 2018–November 2023 were upheld with Section 73 penalty and the Section 125 penalty of Rs. 25,000, no penalty or interest was to apply to the regularised affiliation period, and the liability was ordered to be recomputed. The outcome is neutral: the levy was upheld, but with substantial relief.
Other Case Law
Vishwa Mitter vs. O. P. Poddar and Others,
Competency of a complainant to file a criminal complaint under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 read with Section 420 IPC, and whether a Magistrate can refuse to take cognizance on the ground that the complainant is not the
The appellant, Vishwa Mitter, was a dealer in beedies and the constituted attorn...
Read MoreVidarbha Beverages & Ors. vs. State Tax Officer & Ors.
GST liability on assignment of leasehold rights in immovable property; scope of “supply” (Sections 7 & 74, CGST Act, 2017 read with Schedule II & III)
Facts The petition challenged a show cause notice demanding GST of ₹59,40...
Read MoreMathur Polymers v. Union of India & Ors.
Validity of GST adjudication order where hearing notices were served through registered email and challenge to consolidated proceedings for multiple periods
Facts :The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 02.02.2025 on the g...
Read More