TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upon to show cause as to why service tax should not be demanded from the petitioner for taxable services rendered by the petitioner under Section 65 (105) (zzze) of the Finance Act 1994 between the period May 2005 and May 2010. 3.In the impugned show cause notice, it has been alleged that the petitioner was rendering services that of a "clubs or association" as defined in Section 65 (25a) of the Finance Act, 1994. It has been alleged that since the petitioner was an incorporated company and therefore, the services rendered by it cannot be said to be excluded from the definition of "club or association" in view of specific exclusion sub-clause (iii) to the above definition. 4.Under these circumstances, the impugned Show Cause Notice justi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, in the present writ petition an interim injunction was ordered on 16.11.2011 in M.P.No.2 of 2011 and therefore the impugned Show Cause Notice has not been adjudicated till date. Meanwhile, the Honourable Supreme Court has now given its verdict on 03.10.2019 in the above case. The question of law has been settled. In paragraph 72, 73, 82, 83 and 84, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as under:- 71. With this background, it is important now to examine the Finance Act as it obtained, firstly from 16th June, 2005 uptil 1st July, 2012. 72. The definition of "club or association" contained in Section 65(25a) makes it plain that any person or body of persons providing services for a subscription or any other amount to its members wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to (an assembly, etc.)". Thus the word in its wider significance, would include both, the idea of creating or establishing, and the idea of giving a legal form to, a partnership. The Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of R.C. Mitter and Sons v. CIT [(1955) 28 ITR 698, 704, 705] under examination now, was not, therefore, right in restricting the word "constitute" to mean only "to create", when clearly it could also mean putting a thing in a legal shape. The Bombay High Court, therefore, in the case of Dwarkadas Khetan and Co. v. CIT [(1956) 29 ITR 903, 907] , was right in holding that the section could not be restricted in its application only to a firm which had been created by an instrument of partnership, and that it could reaso....