- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) The parties have gone up to the Supreme Court and in that it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the applicant may apply for review. The matter has come up before us in review.
(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Our attention has been drawn to the submission made by the parties in this review application and the decision. The part of the decision which requires consideration is quoted herein-below: ....In this counter affidavit the Respondents have not disputed the legal position that the Petitioner's club is not liable to pay service tax for the services rendered to its member under the provisions of law. However, it has been asserted that the Petitioner provides and allows the services for outsiders and receives money on this score for which it is liable to pay service tax as per law. ... ... When the matter was taken up for admission in presence of the parties, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri Binod Kumar Poddar, Sr. Advocate and counsel for the Respondents Mr. Mokhtar Khan agreed that "Mandap Keeper" under the provisions of the Act and as per decisions cited by the Petitioners annexed with this writ petition vide annexures-2, 3, 4 & 9 is not liable to pay service tax under the provisions of Section 65(66) (67) of the Finance Act, 1994 when the services were utilized by the members of the club. Therefore the admitted position of law remains that the Petitioner's club is not liable to pay service tax for the services provided to its members under the Act and this position of law does not require any clarification in the admitted facts. .......;