In Brief
A Chinese company (SEPCO) provided design engineering and project management services to a major Indian aluminium company. The revenue demanded service tax, but the tax tribunal held that companies were not covered by the definition of 'consulting engineer' prior to a 2005 amendment. The Supreme Court held that under the Finance Act 1994, the word 'firm' in the definition of consulting engineer, read in statutory context, includes companies. Since individuals, partnerships, and companies all provide identical taxable services, excluding companies would create unjustified classifications and absurdity. Therefore, the company was liable to pay service tax even before the 2005 amendment clarified the point.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.