https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1724740233466646953?t=nJzEAV2SHi7sXR-MyQhm_w&s=08 Madras HC dismisses writ filed by Pondicherry University against tax demand on consideration received for Affiliation/Recognition from colleges, remarks “affiliation work and the charges collected and similar amounts collected for renewal of affiliation cannot be said to service provided in relation to relating to admission to, or conduct of examination by, such institution”; Explicates that, the services provided to colleges for grant/renewal of affiliation was “not in contemplation of the Parliament when it was introduced Section 66D(ii) by Finance Act, 2012 into Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from July 01, 2012”;

Madras HC dismisses writ filed by Pondicherry University against tax demand on consideration received for Affiliation/Recognition from colleges, remarks “affiliation work and the charges collected and similar amounts collected for renewal of affiliation cannot be said to service provided in relation to relating to admission to, or conduct of examination by, such institution”; Explicates that, the services provided to colleges for grant/renewal of affiliation was “not in contemplation of the Parliament when it was introduced Section 66D(ii) by Finance Act, 2012 into Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from July 01, 2012”; HC explains that there could be affiliation after inspection or renewal of affiliation “are independent services provided by assessee which are “commercial” in nature and facilitate a private “educational institution” to provide education to students as a part of a curriculum for student/scholar to obtain a qualification recognized by any law for the time being in force”; However, holds that exemption was available for a brief period on service of Renting of Immovable Property i.e. July 01, 2012 and March 31, 2013, and is not available w.e.f. April 01, 2013, in view of amendment vide Notification No.3/2013–ST dated March 01, 2013 to Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 – ST dated June 20, 2012; Thus, stresses that the views rendered in cases of Madurai Kamaraj University and Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, require reconsideration as there is no scope for interpretation when the language in the Notification was clear and there was also no scope for merging to exclusion and exemption together; Moreover, relies on CBEC’s Educational Guideline issued on June 20, 2012, after the Finance Act, 1994 was amended by Finance Act, 2012, where it has been clarified that service delivered as a part of curriculum would be covered by Section 66D (l)(ii) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the conduct of degree courses by colleges, universities or institutions which lead to grant of qualifications recognized by law alone would be covered by Section 66D(l)(ii); HC clarifies that “Although, the Educational Guide issued by the Central Board of Excise and Custom is not binding on the Court, they nevertheless represent the understanding of the Deparement. They are relevant as “contempory expositio of law”” : Madras HC