The petitioner, a charitable society is engaged in running internationally renowned schools. It allowed other schools to use its name, logo and motto and as a consideration thereof, received collaboration fees from such

CS Professional · Advanced Tax Laws and Practice · PYQS · December 2015
The petitioner, a charitable society is engaged in running internationally renowned schools. It allowed other schools to use its name, logo and motto and as a consideration thereof, received collaboration fees from such schools which comprised of a non-refundable amount and an annual fee. The schools were required to observe certain obligations/ terms and un-impeachable confidentiality. Department contended that the petitioner was engaged in providing franchise service and accordingly issued show cause notice proposing to recover service tax along with interest and penalty. Examine the validity of the Department's action with reference to decided cases, if any.

Answer & Explanation:

The facts of the given case are similar to the case of Mayo College General Council decided by the High Court. In the instant case, the High Court held that when the petitioner permitted other schools to use their name, logo and also motto, it clearly tantamounted to providing 'franchise service' to the said schools and if the petitioner realised the 'franchise' or collaboration fees from the franchisee schools, the petitioner was duty bound to pay service tax to the Department. Therefore, in view of the above mentioned ruling of High Court, the action of the Department is valid.

Topics: Service Tax

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic