Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
DELHI CHIT FUND ASSOCIATION .......Petitioner
For the Petitioner : Mr Venkatraman, Sr. Adv. with Mr Ravi Sikri, Mr Hari Shankar, Mr Ayush Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr Mukesh Anand, Mr Aditya
Malhotra, Advcoates for R-1.
Mr Kamal Nijhawan, Sr. Standing Counsel for R-2.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR
1. The short question which arises in this writ petition is whether the provision of services in relation to conducting a chit business is a taxable service for the purposes of section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 inserted w. e. f. 1st July, 2012.
2. The petitioner is an association of chit fund companies based in Delhi. By a notification No.26/2012 issued on 20th June, 2012, the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance of the Government of India 2013:DHC:2027-DB exempted: - ―the taxable service of the description specified in column (2) of the Table below, from so much of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66B of the said Act, as is in excess of the service tax calculated on a value which is equivalent to a percentage specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table, of the amount charged by such service provider for providing the said taxable service, unless specified otherwise, subject to the relevant conditions specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table, namely: -
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ (4) of the said Table, namely: - │ │ Sl. Description Percent Conditions │ │ No. of taxable age │ │ service │ │ (1) (2) (3) (4) │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 8 Services 70 CENVAT credit on inputs, │ │ provided in capital goods and input │ │ relation to services, used for providing │ │ chit the taxable service, has not │ │ been taken under the │ │ provisions of the CENVAT │ │ Credit Rules, 2004. │ │ 3. The petitioner prays that the notification should be quashed in so │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
15. The argument is that the answer given in the Education Guide is not correct having regard to the proper interpretation of the statutory provision. We have come to the conclusion that no service tax is chargeable on the services rendered by the foreman in a business chit fund on an interpretation of the statutory provisions. It is not necessary for us to therefore express any opinion as to the correctness of the views expressed in the aforesaid Education Guide issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
16. In the result the writ petition succeeds and prayer (i) is granted. The notification No.26/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) is quashed to the extent of the entry in serial No.8 thereof. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. R.V.EASWAR, J BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J APRIL 23, 2013 hs