CHANAKYA MANDAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof so as to declare that the explanation added to section 65(105)(zzc) by the Finance Act 14 of 2010 dated 8th May, 2010 with retrospective effect from 1st July, 2003 is unconstitutional and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner before us proceeds on the footing that the above explanation is added to section 65(26) and (27) of the Finance Act, 1994. Rather, it is an explanation added to the definition of the term "taxable service". We are concerned with that part. The term that is defined for the purpose of understanding a taxable service, namely "commercial training or coaching", "commercial training or coaching centre". That is evident from a reading of the Act itself, is for the purpose of the expressions, which are used in the term "taxable service". It is that expression which refers to the commercial training or coaching centre.

(3.) Therefore, the Board of Excise and Customs ("CBEC" for short) may be making a reference to section 65(26) and (27), but the explanation is not added thereto.