(A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
Union of India and Others __________________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. ___________________________ Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 6911 of 2005, decided on July 23, 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The undisputed facts are that the Government had issued Notification No. 13 of 2003-Service Tax whereby it exempted the ‘Business auxilliary services provided by a commission agent’ from the service tax leviable thereon under sub-Section (2) of Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. Thereafter, circular dated 05.11.2003 was issued in which it is stated that having regard to some doubts that had arisen regarding application of service tax on the activity of mutual fund distribution, it was clarified that the commission received by distributors on mutual fund distribution would be liable to service tax as it would not fall within the expression ‘business auxilliary services’. This circular dated 05.11.2003 has been set aside by the High Court in the impugned judgment on the ground that it amounts to foreclosing discretion or judgment that may be exercised by the quasi judicial authority while deciding a particular lis under particular circumstances. The High Court referred to the proviso to Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which categorically states that such kind of circulars cannot be issued. We, thus, do not find any error in the impugned judgment. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Civil Appeal No. 6911/2005
Union of India and Ors ___________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
M/s. Karvy Stock Broking Ltd ______________________ Respondent
(With appln. (s) for stay and office report)
Date : 23/07/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
(Before A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv.
Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv.
Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Tarun Gulati, Adv.
Mr. R. Chandrachud, Adv.
Mr. Kishore Kunal, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
2. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
———
