'All services rendered by Airport Authority of India taxable': SC upholds service tax demand
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court has said all kinds of services rendered by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) in any airport are taxable and liable to service tax as it dismissed the appeal of the airport regulator against the service tax liability between 2003 and 2007.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and P B Varale upheld the March 1, 2017 order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that approved the service tax demand from the AAI on services, including export cargo, it provides.
The AAI in discharge of its duties, handles cargo on airports including export cargo which involves a number of activities like unloading, carting, X-ray, export packing, etc.
These services are rendered from the time the cargo is accepted for shipment till it is placed on the aircraft.
The AAI contended that the service tax demand was raised for services, including handling of export cargo which was excluded under Sub section (23) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The bench after analysing the provisions of the law said the definition of the taxable service is very wide and takes into its fold any kind of service that may be provided to any person by the Airports Authority at any airport.
"Accordingly, all kinds of services rendered by the Airports Authority in any airport are taxable services and are chargeable to service tax under Section 66 of the Act," the bench held in a recent verdict.
"It may be pertinent to note that sub-clause (zzm) was introduced with effect from September 10, 2004. Accordingly, any kind of services whether in respect of export cargo provided by the Airports Authority to any person after inclusion of sub clause (zzm) would be taxable service," the top court said.
The bench observed that the intent of the charging Section 66 of the Act, which provides for tax on the services, refers to in sub-clauses including sub-clause (zzm).
"In short, any kind of services which are covered under any of the sub-clauses of Section 66, including (zzm) are chargeable to tax and are taxable service," the top court said, while rejecting AAI's argument that handling of export cargo does not incur service tax liability.
While upholding the decision of the CESTAT, the bench said, "CESTAT or the authorities below have not erred in taxing the services rendered by the appellant in relation to export cargo as taxable service under sub-clause (zzm) of Sub-section (105) of Section 65 of the Act with effect from September 10, 2004."
On March 17, 2010, the Commissioner (Adjudication), Service Tax at Delhi confirmed the service tax liability upon the airport regulator for the period October 1, 2003 to March 31, 2007 under the category of "Storage and Warehousing Service" up to September 9, 2004 and thereafter from September 10, 2004 under the category "Airport Services" introduced in Finance Act of 1994.
Aggrieved by the order, the AAI moved the CESTAT on the ground that the order of the Commissioner (Adjudication), Service Tax was flawed in view of the exemption from service tax on services rendered on export cargo.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
