Strict construction of service tax law kept chit fund business outside the levy and invalidated the circular.

Chit fund transactions were treated as a special form of contract with a distinct legal character, and the amended service tax entry did not specifically include chit funds within "cash management". Applying strict construction of taxing provisions, the court held that a levy cannot be extended by circular or by reliance on dictionary meaning or the RBI Act where the statute itself does not clearly cover the activity. The chit fund business was therefore outside the service tax net, and the impugned circular was invalid; the service tax demand was set aside for want of specific statutory authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether chit fund transactions fell within the expression "cash management" under the amended service tax entry, and whether the impugned circular could validly bring chit fund business within the service tax net without specific statutory inclusion.

Analysis: Chit transactions were held to be a special form of contract with a distinct legal character, as explained in the cited precedents and the Chit Funds Act framework. The taxing entry in section 65(12) of the Finance Act, 1994, even after amendment by the Finance Act, 2007, did not specifically include chit funds, and the court applied the settled rule that a taxing provision must be construed strictly. In the absence of clear statutory words extending the levy to chit fund business, the executive could not enlarge the scope of taxation by circular, and reliance on dictionary meanings or the RBI Act could not substitute for legislative authority.

Conclusion: The chit fund business did not fall within the service tax levy on the facts and the impugned circular was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded because the service tax demand on chit fund transactions was set aside for lack of specific statutory authority.

---