9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "professionally qualified consulting engineer" for service tax purposes. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of a draughtsman as a professionally qualified consulting engineer for the purpose of service tax. The Revenue sought to recover service tax from the draughtsman based on the argument that holding a certificate from an Industrial Training Institute qualified him as a professionally qualified consulting engineer. However, the Commissioner found that the draughtsman, who only held a certificate from the Institute, did not meet the criteria to be considered a professionally qualified engineer. Upon hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal emphasized that to be classified as a consulting engineer, one must be professionally qualified by obtaining a degree or diploma in engineering from a recognized university. In this case, the draughtsman was only a certificate holder from an Industrial Training Institute and not a graduate with an engineering degree or diploma. The certificate obtained by the draughtsman was for trade training in draftsmanship and was issued by the Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation after his schooling. The Tribunal further highlighted that the Industrial Training Institute provided training in various trades, including draughtsman (civil), fitter, turner, welder, electrician, plumber, A/C mechanic, and radio mechanic. The Tribunal reasoned that if the draughtsman were to be considered a consulting engineer based on his certificate, then all individuals trained in these trades would also qualify as consulting engineers, which the Tribunal deemed as an absurd proposition. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the draughtsman did not meet the criteria to be categorized as a professionally qualified consulting engineer, and the appeal by the Revenue was rejected.
|
