News Update

Correction in challan attributes in respect of IDS, 2016 payments - reg32 officers to receive awards on Central Excise Day tomorrowSuman Saxena takes over as full fledged member of Bankruptcy BoardCabinet makes way for mega solar power projects with 40,000 MW capacityAfghani national caught with endangered corals speciesCabinet gives nod to India Poland Agreement on agricultural co-operationIT Ministry launches Cyber Swachhta KendraGovt's limitation in demonetization analytics should rekindle tax reformsCentral Excise - CESTAT cannot reduce mandatory penalty: Supreme CourtI-T - No additions warranted on gross value of cash deposits which represents turnover, if it did not breach profit limit prescribed u/s 44ADST -Collection of data on consumption of electricity by MSEDCL customers by taking photos of meter reading for generation of bills is taxable under BAS: CESTATCash deposit post demon(etisation) - CBDT guidelines for AO'sCBI arrests three Central Excise officials in graft caseITAT Vice President G D Agrawal gets officiating charge of PresidentUplift of 'Digital Payments' - more than INR 150 crore distributed as 'reward'Govt notifies all provisions of protocol amending India Israel DTAA (See 'DTAA' in 'TII')Anti Dumping - Writ Petition against final findings of Designated Authority: High Court was not justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction: SCCivil Services Day - PM Awards to be given today90K more affordable houses sanctioned for urban poorIndia offers tech knowhow to ASEAN in telecom sectorRestricting doubly exempt Corpus DonationST - Tribunal is barred from rendering finding or recording an order on matter in which appellant has not placed itself within Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction: CESTATI-T - No penalty is leviable, if basis of addition itself ceases to survive: ITATCX - SSI notfn. 8/2001 - Intent to take advantage of recognition enjoyed by another brand is critical to invoking of exception provision: CESTATCBEC grants Sec 11C benefit on services provided by Common Effluent Treatment Plant for period 2012 to 2015ACC promotes 292 CBDT officers as Principal CITAppointment of Special Public Prosecutors for income tax cases - JS-level officer from Ministry of Law to join screening panel for metrosCBI books senior IAS officer in graft caseIndia keen to give fillip to relations with African countries: AnsariHome buyers' complaint - SC toughens stand against Unitech; directs to deposit interest within 8 weeksFICN worth about Rs one crore seized on Indo-Bangla borderKalindi Express rams into goods train at Tundla StationChange in rate of tax vs. Change in effective rate of taxI-T - Rent earned by assessee engaged in business of leasing properties, will be taxable as 'business profits': ITATST - 'gross amount charged', is not an isolated phrase but to be read in conjunction with expression 'for such service provided': CESTATCX - Merely because Autolite India Ltd is a group company, appellant cannot use its brand name and claim SSI benefit: CESTAT
 
Service Tax - Chit Funds not taxable under 'Banking and other financial services' - Board Circular quashed: AP High Court

By TIOL News Service

HYDERABAD, OCT 14, 2008 : IN the writ petitions, the petitioners sought for a mandamus and assailing the correctness of CBEC circular No. 96/7/2007-ST (Reference Code. 034-04) dated 23.8.2007 and proceedings No. HAST 141/2007 dated 18.12.2007 issued by the Commissioner as being violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (g) and 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 65 (12) read with section 65 (105) (zm) of the Finance Act, 1994 and to set aside the same.   The case of the petitioners is that they are doing business in chit funds, the transactions of which are clearly covered by the provisions of the A.P. Chit Funds Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder.  According to them, very nature of transaction stands quite apart.

The Board Circular may be seen for a clear understanding:

Services are provided in relation to chit funds. Chit Funds are of two types, namely :-

(a) Simple Chit Funds: In this case, members agree to contribute to the fund a certain amount at regular interval. Lots are drawn periodically and the member, whose name appears, gets the periodical collection. No separate amount is charged from the members.

(b) Business Chit Funds: In this case, there is a promoter known as foreman who draws up the terms and conditions of the scheme and enrolls subscribers. Every subscriber has to pay his subscription in regular installments. The foreman charges a separate amount for the services provided. Some States prescribe a ceiling limit for the amount to be charged by such promoter for the services provided. Commission amount is retained by the promoter as consideration for providing the services in relation to chit fund.

Whether services provided in relation to chit fund is leviable to service tax under “banking and other financial services” or not?

The Board’s clarification reads as,

Reserve Bank of India has clarified that the business of a chit fund is to mobilize cash from the subscribers and effectively cause movement of such cash to keep it working and, therefore, the activity of chit funds is in the nature of cash management.

(a) In the case of Simple Chit Funds, no consideration is paid or received for the services provided and, therefore, the question of levy of service tax does not arise.

(b) In the case of Business Chit Funds, cash management service is provided for a consideration and, therefore, leviable to service tax under “banking and other financial services”.

The petitioners made it clear to the Department that the very assumption by the respondents to treat the chit fund business to fall within the ambit of asset management is not correct nor valid in law and further pointed out that there is subtle difference between the banking and financial services as defined under the Act with that of the Chit transactions, therefore, no liability can be fastened on them.

Further it is pointed out that the Department cannot levy a tax for the first time on a totally new arena by issuance of a circular.  As long as the Finance Act is not properly modified or amended to bring within its fold the chit transactions, the demand made by the Department is totally unsustainable. 

It was further pointed out that even when the Budget proposals were made for 2007-08, the Hon’ble Finance Minister did not give any indication that the cash management would include the chit fund business and therefore it is neither the policy decision nor the law as enunciated at the relevant point of time to bring the chit fund business within the ambit of the asset management and thus the entire levy and demand is totally illegal, unconstitutional and as such liable to be set aside. 

The High Court observed,

It is not disputed that the taxing statute needs to be interpreted strictly.  It must be very specific about its levy rather than to import deeming interpretation.  The petitioners specifically raised a plea in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that at the time of introduction of the service tax before 1994 or later when the Finance Act has undergone amendment and during the discussions of the Budget proposals, no indication was given by the Finance Minister to extend the provisions of service tax to the chit funds business.  There is no denial on this aspect nor there is any explanation.  Therefore, be it an asset management or cash management, both expressions strictly speaking did not find place in the definition clauses under any of the Finance Acts.  It does not include or exclude the chit transaction or business specifically.  There cannot be any dispute that the very nature of business and transaction under the chits as can be culled out from the provisions of the Chit Fund Act and it stands on its own as a class.  It does not have any parlance or similarity to that of normal transactions as one understood under the law or commercially.   Admittedly, there is no provision whatsoever by including specifically the chits within the meaning of either ‘cash management’ or ‘asset management’.  Therefore, irrespective of such amendment either by earlier inclusion or later exclusion of those expressions, it will not have bearing on the chit transaction.

The HC recalled the basic principles of taxation:

  • No tax can be imposed on the subject without words in the Act clearly showing an intention to lay a burden upon him.
  • The subject cannot be taxed unless he comes within the letter of the law; the argument that he falls within the spirit of the law cannot avail the Department.

  • Tax and equity are strangers and an equitable construction cannot be put upon the words of a taxing statute.
     
  • In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said.  There is no room for any intendment.  There is no equity about a tax.  There is no presumption as to a tax.  Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied.  One can only look fairly at the language used

Therefore in the absence of a specific statutory definition of ‘cash management’ or even ‘asset management’, the question of its wider interpretation either by seeking to include or exclude any other transactions or business does not arise and is not permissible and any such act on the part of the executive would certainly be in the teeth of Article 265 of the Constitution of India.  

The entire action on the part of the respondents in trying to extend the levy of the tax for the first time by way of a circular is merely an executive fiat, which is not permissible under the law.  

The impugned circular dated 23.8.2007 and consequential proceedings dated 18.12.2007 are set aside and accordingly the writ petitions are allowed.

(See 2008-TIOL-502-HC-AP-ST in 'Service Tax' + 2008-TIOL-502-HC-AP-ST in 'Legal Corner')


POST YOUR COMMENTS