P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. Consequence of the amendment to S.65(12)(a)(v) of the Finance Act 1994 in the year 2007, deleting the words "but does not include cash management" and the effect of the subsequent Circular bearing No. 9677/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) of the Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, is the subject matter involved in all these cases. As a result of the said amendment, the petitioners, who are running chitty business in the State of Kerala, were sought to be brought within the purview of the Service Tax Net, which is under challenge. The crux of the contentions raised by the petitioners is that, they are not covered by the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 as made clear by a Full Bench of this Court in Oommen Panicker and Others Vs. Muthoot Mini Chitty Fund, ; that the amendment by way of S.4(1)(a) brought about by the State of Kerala stands set aside as unconstitutional by a Division Bench of this Court in Dharmodayam Company Vs. Union of India (UOI), ; that the Chit Funds Act, 1982 enacted by the Central Government was still to be notified within the State of Kerala (notified only with effect from 30.4.2012) and that Service Tax can be sought to be imposed only by a positive incorporation of the particular service in the statute and not by way of Circular issued for the first time, invoking the power under S.37B of the Central Excise Act, 1984 read with S.83 of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. W.P.(C) No. 32097/2007 has been filed by All Kerala Association of Chit Funds, which is stated as the State unit of All India Association of Chit Funds, New Delhi as the first petitioner and by one of its members as the second petitioner. The other Writ Petitions have been filed by similarly situated associations or members. Most of the chitty establishments as above stand registered outside the State of Kerala; particularly in Jammu Tawi or Faridabad, though there is some exception like W.P.(C) No. 8711/2009, which has been filed by the K.S.F.E., a State-owned undertaking and W.P.(C) No. 1703/2011 by the petitioner who has got registration within the State of Kerala at Aleppey. All the petitioners running the chitty business are registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956.

3. There is no much factual controversy and the dispute is only with regard to the liability to take registration for the purpose of Service Tax and as to the liability, if any to remit the tax as envisaged under S.66 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioners contend that no tax liability was there, ever since the enactment of the Finance Act, 1994, which by itself shows that there was no intention to impose Service Tax upon the entities like the petitioners as they stand apart as a different class, who according to the petitioners are not rendering any service. It is also stated that, by virtue of the definition of the terms "banking and other financial services" as defined under S.65(12) of the Finance Act and "taxable services" as defined under S.65(105)(zm), they do not pursue any activity, which is taxable and stood excluded from the purview of tax net. Merely by deletion of sons words under S.65 (12)(a)(v) by virtue of Amendment Act in the year 2007, the tax net cannot be widened to bring in the petitioners, making them liable for service tax. It is for the first time in the year 2007, that the petitioners were sought to be included in the tax net, that too, on the basis of Ext.P2 Circular(in W.P.(C) No. 2822/2008), which cannot by itself take the place of a charging provision, in the absence of any specific provision in the statute. The Circular cannot override the provisions of the statute, forms the basic contention.

4. Ext.P1 Circular dated 23.08.2007 (in W.P.(C) No. 32097/2007) is pressed into service to contend that the petitioners' institution stands outside the purview of tax net by virtue of the clear exclusion set forth in S.65(12)(a)(v) of the Finance Act, 1