9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue raised in all these Appeals/Writ Petitions are with respect to the liability of chit transactions, to service tax as arising from the Finance Act, 1994. The issue arises during three periods, in so far as the amendments made to the Finance Act, 1994. They are, pre-2012, between 2012 to 2015 as also post-2015. According to the various establishments carrying on chits, who are the appellants in the maximum number of appeals/petitions in the batch, contend that the issue is squarely covered by AIR 2017 SC 3730, Union of India v. Margadarshi Chit Funds (P) Ltd. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that there is ambiguity in so far as the coverage between 2012 and 2015. An appeal is also filed by the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding of the Honourable Supreme Court. 3. The issue briefly stated is, prior to 2007, there was definition of various 'Services' exigible to tax under Finance Act, 1994. Section 65(12)(v) defined "banking and other financial services", which was as follows:- (a) the following services provided by a banking company or a financial institution including a non-banking financial company or any other body corporate or any commercial concern, namely: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) asset management including portfolio management, all forms of fund management, pension fund management, custodial, depository and trust services, but does not include cash management." 4. The chit transactions were not assessed till 01-06-2007, when an amendment was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim having been specifically excluded, the contention was that chit transaction would not come under the definition of 'service' as available in Section 65B(44). The issue agitated by the Revenue is as to whether between 2012 and 2015 there could be tax levied on the chit transactions deeming it to be a service, which has not been excluded in the definition nor included in the negative list. To answer this, we just have to notice para 21 of the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court, which is extracted below:-. "The aforesaid historical background would demonstrate that admittedly upto June 14, 2007, chit fund business was not exigible to service tax. Likewise, from July 01, 2012 to June 14, 2015, no service tax was payable. Pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ." Herein, the transactions "by a foreman of chit fund for conducting or organizing a chit in any manner" was specifically excluded from the definition of transaction in money or actionable claim. As a consequence, the chit transaction becomes liable to tax under the Finance Act, 1994, from 2015 onwards. 7. The Revenue contends that the aforesaid amendment is merely clarificatory in nature and would be applicable from 2012 onwards. We are unable to countenance such a contention, especially, going by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court dilating upon the principle that a taxation statute should be strictly construed and if any ambiguity be found to exist, it should be resolved in favour of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
