9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived any service tax from its clients in July and August, 1997. In September, 1997, the petitioner received ₹ 3,95,573 by way of service tax from some of its clients which the petitioner deposited on October 3, 1997. Petitioner No. 1 also filed its first quarterly service tax return on October 14, 1997, pertaining to the period July to September, 1997. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner from time to time collected service tax arid also filed quarterly returns with the Department. 3. According to the petitioner, although some of the clients of the petitioner paid service tax, many of them have refused to pay service tax to petitioner No. 1. Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 has filed returns in respect of its clients from whom petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that in the definitions of various types of service providers appearing in Section 65 the term firm has been used only with respect to the consulting engineer in Section 65(13). In all the other cases either the term person or commercial concern has been used. The term person like the term firm has neither been defined in the service tax laws nor in the Central Excise Act. The term person has been defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. In other words, in the case of all service providers other than the consulting engineer the scope and ambit of the definition has been enlar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or attempt can be made to do any violence to the same so as to include the term company . He further placed reliance on a decision reported in C.A. Abraham v. ITO [1961]41ITR425(SC) and contended that in interpreting a fiscal statute, the court cannot proceed to make good deficiencies if there be any, the court must interpret the statute as it stands and in the case of doubt in a manner favourable to the taxpayer. 9. He further contended that the Explanation to Section 81 provides that for the purposes of the said Section company means, any body corporate and includes a firm and other association of individuals. Therefore, without the Explanation a firm cannot include a company nor a company include a firm. 10. He further re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ineering. 13. He further contended that the writ petitioner's contention that the words engineering firm in the definition clause cannot apply to a limited company but only to a partnership firm cannot be the correct interpretation for the following reasons : (a) The dictionary meaning of the word firm does not confine it only to partnership. (b) Black's Law Dictionary (5th edition) defines firm as follows : Firm--'Business entity or enterprise'. 14. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, volume I, defines firm--Firm the style or name under which a commercial house transacts business ; 15. In view of the various provisions of the Act and its purpose and object the word f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther professionals are not taxed, the consulting engineers are taxed and, therefore, it is arbitrary. The argument is clearly untenable and has to be rejected as consulting engineers are a class by themselves. In the Supreme Court judgment reported in Trustees of Gordhandas Govindram Family Charity Trust v. CIT [1973]88 ITR 47(SC) , held that the word individual in Section 3 of the Act included trustees of the trust constituted an assessable unit under the Act. 22. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case I do not have any hesitation to accept the contention of Mr. Roy Chowdhury and express the same view as has been expressed by their Lordships in V. Shanmughavel's case [2002]254ITR717(Mad) and Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said definition and, therefore, there cannot be any exemption whatsoever in respect of petitioner No. 1. In my opinion, the question is to see the rendering of the service in what capacity--if it is consulting engineer in my opinion certainly they will attract the said definition whether it is an individual, or a firm or a company and furthermore, where the knowledge of such service based upon knowledge in engineering then automatically they must come within the purview of the said section and it cannot be said that the action on the part of the respondent authorities is illegal and in my opinion the petitioner cannot get any benefit by merely corning within the purview of the Companies Act. Therefore, I specifically hold that the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
