Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2024 (2) TMI 1086 - HC - Service TaxMaintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - Appellant is a juridical person or not - Appellant can be treated as a trust or not - service provided to contributories or not - failure to recogniSe pass-through status for the purpose of taxation statues - consideration received fro contributors or not - doctrine of mutuality. Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - HELD THAT - In this case there is no dispute with regard to rate of duty in this case. The question is whether assessee is liable to pay the duty. Therefore appeal is maintainable before this Court. Whether the CESTAT has erred in holding the Appellant to be a juridical person? - HELD THAT - The definition clauses of each statute must be read with the object and purpose of that statute only as intended by the legislature. Various statutes such as SEBI GST IBC recognize trust as a person whereas the Finance Act does not. The issue involved in this case is liability to pay Service tax therefore the relevant statute is the Finance Act. Hence the contention urged by Revenue is untenable. The CESTAT has recorded in the impugned order that since the trust is treated as juridical person under SEBI there is no reason why it should not be treated as a juridical person for taxation. This view of the CESTAT is untenable because for the purpose of levy of tax the entity has to be recognized under the said Act - Accordingly the first question is answered as affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Whether the CESTAT has erred in holding that the Appellant cannot be treated as a trust and failed to recognize its pass-through status for the purpose of taxation statues? - HELD THAT - The assessee acts as a pass through wherein funds from contributors are consolidated and invested by the investment manager. It acts as a trustee holding the money belonging to contributors to be invested as per the advice of the investment manager - the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Whether the CESTAT has erred in ignoring that the moneys and funds contributed by the Contributors being the property of the Appellant the asset management service if any rendered is by the Appellant for its own self? - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that contributors are institutional investors. It is noted that doctrine of mutuality applies when commonality is established between the contributors and participators - In the instant case the contributors and the trust cannot be dissected as two different entities because it is an admitted fact that contributors investment is held in trust by the fund and it is invested as per the advice of investment manager. In substance fund does nor do an act. Hence can be no service to self. Therefore the doctrine of mutuality must apply in the instant case - the third question is answered as affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Appeal allowed.
|