9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 336 - HC - Service TaxDefinition of Consulting Engineer as per Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 - whether includes a company or not as applicable to the period 1997-2001 - Held that - The words an engineering firm appearing in the above definition, were substituted by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 01.05.2006 with the words any body corporate or any other firm . It is, therefore, clear that the expression any body corporate was introduced with effect from 01.05.2006. But, in the present case, the relevant period is 1997- 2001. At that point of time, the expression any body corporate was not included in the said definition of consulting engineer . The Karnataka High Court 2010 (4) TMI 344 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has also taken the view that the expression consulting engineer as it appeared in Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994, at the relevant time (i.e. prior to 01.05.2006), did not include a private limited company or any other body corporate - no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Issues: Interpretation of the definition of 'Consulting Engineer' under Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period 1997-2001.
Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, challenging the inclusion of a private limited company under the definition of 'Consulting Engineer' as per Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period 1997-2001. 2. The main issue in the appeal was whether the definition of 'Consulting Engineer' includes a 'company' or not. The appellant argued that the respondent, being a private limited company, falls under this definition. 3. The relevant provision of Section 65(31) defined 'consulting engineer' as a professionally qualified engineer or an engineering firm providing advice or consultancy to a client. The term 'engineering firm' was later replaced with 'any body corporate or any other firm' in 2006, but during the period in question (1997-2001), it did not include 'any body corporate.' 4. The appellant relied on Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which defines 'person' to include any company. However, the court noted that this provision applies only when the term 'person' is used in an Act or Regulation, which was not the case in the definition of 'consulting engineer.' 5. The court referred to a judgment by the Karnataka High Court, which also held that the definition of 'consulting engineer' did not include a private limited company or any other body corporate for the relevant period. 6. Ultimately, the court found no substantial question of law for consideration and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the definition of 'Consulting Engineer' for the period 1997-2001 did not cover a private limited company like the respondent. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the interpretation of the legal provisions and the court's reasoning in reaching its decision regarding the definition of 'Consulting Engineer' under the Finance Act, 1994 for the specified period.
|
