9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 1125 - HC - Service TaxLevy of service tax - Petitioner is foreman of chit fund business for the period from October 2014 to May 2015 - HELD THAT - Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VERSUS M/S. MARGADARSHI CHIT FUNDS (P) LTD. ETC 2017 (7) TMI 224 - SUPREME COURT has held that service tax cannot be levied on the foreman of chit fund business for the period from 15.06.2007 to 14.06.2015. Having regard to the said authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which holds the field, it is not possible to sustain the impugned order, which shall stand set aside - Petition allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Original levying service tax on the petitioner as foreman of chit fund business for a specific period. Analysis: The Writ Petition contested the Order-in-Original passed by the Respondent, imposing service tax on the Petitioner as a foreman of a chit fund business for the period from October 2014 to May 2015. The Petitioner's counsel highlighted a crucial judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India -vs- Margadarshi Chit Funds (P) Ltd., which clarified that service tax could not be imposed on foremen of chit fund businesses for the period from 15.06.2007 to 14.06.2015. The Court noted the specific amendment that brought chit fund activities within the ambit of taxable services effective from 15-6-2015. Notably, the judgment emphasized that no service tax was payable for chit fund businesses from 1-7-2012 to 14-6-2015, and the dispute centered on the period from 15-6-2007 to 30-6-2012 based on the definition of "banking and financial service" under the relevant Act. The Court, considering the authoritative ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, concluded that the impugned order levying service tax on the Petitioner for the period falling within the non-taxable window as per the judgment could not be upheld. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the Respondent was deemed ineligible to recover the service tax amount demanded from the Petitioner during the specified period. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed on the mentioned terms, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed without any costs being imposed on either party.
|
