Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

July 2013

2013-TIOL-441-HC-DEL-ST Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax v. Simplex Infrastructure and Foundary Works.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Whether the term ‘firm’ also included a private limited company for the purpose of the definition of Consulting Engineer? Held, No.

Facts
The Appellant contended that the respondents; a private limited company was included in the definition of Consulting Engineers having recourse to section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which defined the term ‘person’ to include any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not.

Held:
The Hon. High Court dismissing the appeal held that the definition prior to 01-05-2006 included the term firm only and only post 01-05-2006, the term body corporate was introduced. Further, reliance was also not placed on the definition of person in section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act was incorrect, as nowhere the term ‘person’ was used in the definition of “Consulting Engineer”.

[Note: This decision did not consider and is opposed to the decision in case of M. N. Dastur & Co. Ltd. vs. UOI 2006 (4) ST R 3 (Cal)]

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Global review lauds CAG reports

2013-TIOL-734-CESTAT-MUM M/s. GMMCO Ltd. vs. CCE, Nagpur