RAJESH BALIA, J. ( 1 ) IN these petitions, common question arise about the validity of Circular no. 666 dated 8. 10. 1993 and Circular No. 681 dated 8. 3. 1994 respectively issued by the central Board of Direct Taxes (Board for short ). The relief claimed is to quash two circulars and grant consequential reliefs to the main relief. The main thirst of contention before this Court is whether the provisions of Sec. 194-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) providing for deduction of tax at source applies to the payments made to a class of persons on whose behalf these petitions have been filed. ( 2 ) SPL. Civil Appl. No. 4802/94 has been filed on behalf of All Gujarat Federation of tax Consultants whose members are either Advocates, Chartered Accountants or Tax consultants by profession and in the course of carrying on their profession, they are engaged by various persons to represent their cases before Tax Authorities and Courts. ( 3 ) SPL. Civil Appl. No. 5288/94 is on behalf of Income-Tax Bar Association which consists of Advocates, Chartered Accountants and other practitioners, that is to say, this petition is also by the professionals engaged in the profession of Tax Consultancy and advocacy which includes Advocates, Chartered Accountants (CA for short) and other practitioners. ( 4 ) SPL. Civil Appl. No. 5289/94 is on behalf of Gujarat Institute of Civil Engineers and architects. The petition represents cause of the persons engaged in the profession of Civil engineering and Architecture. ( 5 ) SPL. Civil Appl. No. 1600/95 is on behalf of Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and industry. This petition has been filed for the purpose of quashing aforesaid two circulars issued by the Board to the extent it issues instructions to deduct tax at source for the payments made to its members by the persons referred to in Sec. 149-C of the Act falling within the category of contracts for carrying out any work termed as transport contracts, service contracts, advertisement contracts, broadcasting contracts and telecasting contracts and those who are carrying on profession like Advocates, CAs. Engineers, architects, Doctors etc. ( 6 ) SPL. Civil Appl. No. 874/95 is on behalf of the Tankar Owners and Operators association while Spl. Civil Appl. No. 14043/94 is on behalf of Akhil Gujarat Truck transport Association praying for identical reliefs. Engineers, architects, Doctors etc. ( 6 ) SPL. Civil Appl. No. 874/95 is on behalf of the Tankar Owners and Operators association while Spl. Civil Appl. No. 14043/94 is on behalf of Akhil Gujarat Truck transport Association praying for identical reliefs. ( 7 ) CHAPTER : XVII of the Act, generally containing various provisions providing for collection of tax through the mode of deduction of tax at source on payments made to certain class of persons mentioned therein. Generally speaking, it provides deduction of tax at source from salaries paid by employer, "interest on securities" dividends, interest other than "interest on securities" etc. , etc. , Sec. 194-C of the Act provides for deduction of tax from payments to contractors and Sub-contractors. Sec. 194-C was brought into existence by Finance Act, 1972 w. e. f. 1. 4. 1972. Various amendments have been made in that section since then up to vide Finance Act, 1994 which are not very relevant for the present purpose. Sec. 194-C of the Act reads as under : section 194-C : (1) Any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereinafter in this section referred to as the contractor) for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) for carrying out a contract between the contractor, and (A) the Central Government or any State Government; or (B) any local authority; or (C) any corporation established by our under a Central, State or Provincial Act; or (D) any company; or (E) any Co-op. Society; or (F) any authority, constituted in India by or under any law, engaged either for the purpose of dealing with and satisfying the need for housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and village, or for both, or (G) and society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of india; or (H) any trust; or (I) any University established or incorporated by or under a Central, State or provincial Act and an institution declared to be a University under Sec. 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956), shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the contractor or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to two per cent of such sum as income tax on income comprised therein. (2) Any person (being a contractor and not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family) responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as the sub-contractor) in pursuance of a contract with the sub-contractor for carrying out, or for the supply of labour for carrying out, the whole or any part of the work undertaken by the contractor or for supplying whether wholly or partly any labour which the contractor has undertaken to supply shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the sub-contractor or at any time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to one per cent of such sum as income-tax on income comprised therein. (EXPLANATION : For the purpose of this section, where any sum referred to in sub-sec. (1) or Sub-sec. (2) is credited to any account, whether called "suspense account" or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee and the provisions of this section shall apply accordingly. (1) or Sub-sec. (2) is credited to any account, whether called "suspense account" or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee and the provisions of this section shall apply accordingly. (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) xxx xxx xxx" ( 8 ) CONTEMPORANEOUSLY with the insertion of Sec. 194-C, to be more precise, before the provision came into force, Circular No. 86 dated 28th May, 1972 came to be issued by ministry of Finance expanding the provisions. Relevant part of the Circular reads as under: (II) The deduction of income-tax will be made from sums paid for carrying out any work or for supplying labour for carrying out any work. In other words, the new provisions will apply only in relation to "works contracts" and "labour contracts" and will not cover contracts or sale of good. " (III) Contracts for rendering professional services by lawyers, physicians, surgeons, engineers, accountants, architects, consultants, etc. , can also not be regarded as contracts " for carrying out any work" and, accordingly, no deduction of income-tax will be made from payments relating to such contracts. ( 9 ) SOON thereafter, the Board also issued a Circular No. 98 dated 26th September, 1972 clarifying the ambit and scopes of new provisions in question-answer form. The relevant portion of the circular reads as under :question 5 : Does the requirement apply to transport contract ? answer : A transport contract cannot ordinarily be regarded as "contract for carrying out any work" and, as such, no deduction in respect of income-tax is required to be made from payments made under such a contract. In the case of a composite contract involving transport as well as loading and unloading, the entire contract will be regarded as "work contract" and income-tax will have to be deducted from payments made thereunder. Where, however, the element of labour provided for loading and unloading is negligible, no income-tax will be deductible. QUESTION 7 : Does the requirement apply in relation to payments made to commission agents for arranging sales or to advertising agents rendering professional services ?answer: No. Service contracts not involving the carrying out of any work are outside the scope of the provision. QUESTION 7 : Does the requirement apply in relation to payments made to commission agents for arranging sales or to advertising agents rendering professional services ?answer: No. Service contracts not involving the carrying out of any work are outside the scope of the provision. HOWEVER, the aforesaid circulars were withdrawn in the year 1993 and a circular No. 666 datd 8. 10. 1993 was issued, relevant portion of which reads as under :"2. According to the provisions of Sec. 194-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, any person. . . . . . . . . It is clarified that carrying out any work includes service contracts and transport contracts. . . . . . . . . xxx xxx xxxxx xxx xxx xxxxx5. 3 It is clarified that the term "any work" in Sec. 194-C has to be understood in its natural meaning i. e. , any work means "any and not only a works contract" which has a special connotation in the tax law. This has been clearly enunciated by the Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 23rd March, 1993, in Civil Appel No. 2860 (NT) of 1979 Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1993) 201 ITR 435. Thus, the provisions of Sec. 194-C are applicable to all types of contracts for carrying out any work, such as transport contracts, service contracts, labour contracts, material contracts as well as works contracts, etc. " ( 10 ) AGAIN Circular No. 681 dt; March 8, 1994 was issued by the Board in the following terms :6. It may be pointed out that this appeal before the Supreme Court was by virtue of a special leave petition against the judgment in Writ Petition No. 2909 of 1978 of the Patna High Court in case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1979) 120 ITR 444. The Patna High Court, while dismissing the Writ petition of the aforesaid company, observed that "in a very broad sense", a work done by one person is service rendered to another and indeed one of the dictionary meanings of the word "service is work". 7. The conclusion flowing from the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court and the Patna High Court is that the provisions of Sec. 194-C would apply to all types of contracts including transport contracts, labour contracts, service contracts etc. 7. The conclusion flowing from the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court and the Patna High Court is that the provisions of Sec. 194-C would apply to all types of contracts including transport contracts, labour contracts, service contracts etc. In the light of these judgments, the Board have decided to withdraw their above mentioned Circulars Nos. 86 and 93 and Para 11 of the circular No. 108 and issue the following guidelines in regard to the applicability of Sec. 194-C : (I) The provisions of Sec. 194-C shall apply to all types of contracts for carrying out any work including transport contracts, service contracts, advertisements contracts, broadcasting contracts, telecasting contracts, labour contracts, material contracts and works Contracts. (II) to (iv) xxx xxx xxx (V) Service Contracts would be covered by the provisions of this section since service means doing any work as explained above. (VI) xxx xxx xxx (VII) The provisions of this section would apply in relation to payments made to persons who arrange advertisement, broadcasting, telecasting etc, (viii) to (xiii) xxx xxx xxxxx8. It may be noted that (i) The term "service contracts" would include services rendered by such persons as lawyers, physicians, surgeons, engineers, accountants, architects, consultants, etc. However, services rendered for which payment is in the nature of salaries which is chargeable under the head of income "a. Salaries" in Chapter IV of the Income Tax Act, 1961, shall not be covered by Sec. 194-C. (II) The term "transport contracts" would, in addition to contracts for transportation and loading/unloading of goods, also cover contracts for plying of buses, ferries etc. , along with staff (eg. driver, conductor, cleaner etc.) Reference in this regard is also invited to Boards Circular No. 558 dated 28th March, 1990. " (III) xxx xxx xxxx ( 11 ) IT was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though words used in sec. 194-C makes "any work" of a wider amplitude than the "works contract". None the less, it does not include within its meaning service which cannot be construed as "work", nor "contractor" embrace within it the persons who are independently engaged in the professions of advocates, solicitors, chartered accountants, tax practitioners, doctors, surgeons, engineers etc. 194-C makes "any work" of a wider amplitude than the "works contract". None the less, it does not include within its meaning service which cannot be construed as "work", nor "contractor" embrace within it the persons who are independently engaged in the professions of advocates, solicitors, chartered accountants, tax practitioners, doctors, surgeons, engineers etc. If during the course of their business activities, persons enumerated under Sec. 194-C Clauses (a) to (e), engages such professionals or service agency for securing their special services on the subject or area concern, rendering service on payment of fees or charges, cannot be equated with carrying on work as contractor for engaging principal. Context in which words "any work" and "contract" has been used mean carrying out a job on contract basis for principal, which he would have done himself otherwise. Any payment made to any person under agreement for rendering services in the course of his business, therefore, cannot construed as payment to such person as a "contractor" for doing "work". ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for revenue vehementaly urged that in view of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. s case (201 ITR 435), operation of Sec. 194-C cannot be confined to payments made for executing works contract, but it extends to payments for any work done any terms of agreement and with that out line, he urges that any amount received by lawyer for conducting caseeor by a doctor for prescribing medicines to the patients or by an architect for drawing a plan of a bungalow or by railway carrying goods from one place to another by charging freight, are all receiving payments made under a contract and they do some work. Therefore, on the plain reading of language of Sec. 194-C as interpreted by Their Lordships, all aforesaid categories of persons are included in term contract for carrying out any work and while making any payments to them, any persons enumerated in Clauses (a) to (e) of that section, are under an obligation to deduct the amount at a prescribed rate from the payments made to such contractor. ( 13 ) BEFORE we advance further, we may notice few more facts. ( 13 ) BEFORE we advance further, we may notice few more facts. In the Finance Bill, 1987 it was proposed to insert Sec. 194-E in the following terms :"194-E. Other incomes : (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of (A) fees for professional services, or (B) royalty, or (C) fees for technical services, or (D) rent, or (E) commission (not being insurance commission referred to in Sec. 194-D) or brokerage, or (F) payments for goods supplied to Government or any local authority or any corporation or body established by or under a Central, State or Provincial " act or any company, shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income tax thereon at the rate in force : provided that: (2) In this section : (A) "professional service" means services rendered by a person in the course of carrying on a legal, medical, engineering or architectural profession or the profession of accountancy or technical consultancy or interior decoration or such other profession as is notified by the Board for the purpose of Sec. 44-AA ;. . . . . " ( 14 ) HOWEVER, ultimately this proposal did not carry further and had to be dropped due to strong opposition. In Finance Bill, 1995, Sec. 194-C is sought to be amended. To the extent it is relevant for present purpose is reproduced below : 34. (ii) below Sub-sec. . . . . " ( 14 ) HOWEVER, ultimately this proposal did not carry further and had to be dropped due to strong opposition. In Finance Bill, 1995, Sec. 194-C is sought to be amended. To the extent it is relevant for present purpose is reproduced below : 34. (ii) below Sub-sec. (2), after Explanation II, the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely : explanation : III: For the purpose of this section, the expression, "work" shall also include (A) advertising (B) broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes for such broadcasting or telecasting; (C) carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport other than by railways; (D) catering;" by the very same Bill, there is also a proposal to insert Sec. 194-J in the following terms :"194-J. (1) Any person, not being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, who is responsible for paying to a resident any sum by way of : (A) fees for professional services, or (B) fees for technical services, shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to ten per cent of such sum as income tax on income comprised therein :provided that no deduction shall be made under this section. . . . . . . . . . . . . (A) xxxx xxxx xxx (B) xxxx xxxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxxexplanation : For the purpose of this section, (a) "professional services" means services rendered by a person in the course of carrying on legal, medical, engineering or architectural profession or the profession of accountancy or technical consultancy or interior decoration or advertising or such other profession as is notified by the Board for the purpose of Sec. 44-AA or of this section; (B) "fees for technical service" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to Clause (vii) of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 9; it may be noticed that Sec. 194-J now proposed to be inserted is almost in the same terms for the same purpose for which Sec. 194-E was proposed to be inserted by Finance bill, 1987. (1) of Sec. 9; it may be noticed that Sec. 194-J now proposed to be inserted is almost in the same terms for the same purpose for which Sec. 194-E was proposed to be inserted by Finance bill, 1987. ( 15 ) IT is true that Statute has used words "any work" and, therefore, narrow interpretation confining the applicability of the Act to carrying out the works contract only, would be restricting the natural meaning of the provision. In this connection, it may be appropriate to refer in brief the concept of "work contract" which has acquired its well established meaning under Taxing Statutes to mean that a contract which involves two elements namely (i) transfer of material and (ii) rendering of service in bringing out tangible property out of material. A controversy had arisen whether bringing out tangible property out of such material which work contract complete resulting in transfer of property and material used in bringing out tangible property. However, for the present, it is suffice to state that narrow meaning of works contract bringing out tangible property out of various raw material is not necessarily only type of work which is required to be carried out by contractors. The legislature, by not using words "woks contract" but by only using words "any contract" gave out clearly that the provisions are not confined to activities of carrying out "works contract" only, but of carrying out other work also. The crucial issue in the context of Sec. 194-C is that payment made under such contract which makes the person receiving payment "a contractor". ( 16 ) THE question still remain what is meant by work. Any word in a taxing statute is not to be understood by reference to its several dictionary meaning. The word used in a fiscal law is to be understood in the absence of any definition in its-popular sense, the sense in which the relevant word is usually and normally understood. Further, the word or the collection of words should fit into the structure of the sentence in which the word is used or collection is formed. The word used in a fiscal law is to be understood in the absence of any definition in its-popular sense, the sense in which the relevant word is usually and normally understood. Further, the word or the collection of words should fit into the structure of the sentence in which the word is used or collection is formed. If viewed from that angle, in our opinion, rendering of service in the course of ones own business on being required by other cannot be equated with carrying on any work for others under contract as contractor merely because he had been paid fees/charges or consideration for any agreement. If that be so, every agreement for considerations, except for sale, shall be an agreement for work on contract whenever consideration is paid. When Railways who are engaged in the business of carrying of goods, books a consignment being carried from place "x" to place "y", it cannot be said that it is acting as a contractor for consignor for carrying of goods. Likewise, when doctor examines a patient for diagnosing melady and prescribes medicines and charges a sum of fees, it cannot be said that the doctor is carrying out work of examining patient or for ailing person on contract as a contractor, or that an Architect who in the course of his profession, is engaged to give out a designe of a bungalow to a prospective builder, no one wold understand an Archietect to be carrying on work "as contractor" of designing plans for the builder. Therefore, in our opinion, before a person can be called as contractor within the meaning of Sec. 194-C, his status must have nexus in its characteristic as carrying out work for other person as a contractor in ordinary sense and not merely carrying on activities of his own business or profession in ordinary course by charging fees, remuneration, freight by whatever name it is called. ( 17 ) THAT apart, it may be noticed that in Sec. 194-C, the Legislation has resorted to an inclusive phraseology by bringing in supply of labour or labour contract simplicitor within the ambit of provisions. ( 17 ) THAT apart, it may be noticed that in Sec. 194-C, the Legislation has resorted to an inclusive phraseology by bringing in supply of labour or labour contract simplicitor within the ambit of provisions. Obviously, mere supply of labour for carrying out any work and not contract of carrying out work itself would not have come within the ambit of Sec. 194-C but for creating a fiction because in the former case, it would have been merely case of rendering services and not carrying out work. That is to say, payments would have been made as wages as part of remuneration to the workmen paid to contractor for the supply of labour, but payment would not have been made for work done by the Labour so supplied. This also gives clue that but for inclusive provisions, services rendered by supply of labour by charging remuneration thereof would not have been covered by Sec. 194-C even though labourer would have been supplied only for the purpose of carrying out work. ( 18 ) IT may also be noticed that though the Board is not vested with authority to interprete the provisions of the Statute and it has no jurisdiction to issue any binding interpretation of law any and exercise made in this regard by the Board cannot go beyond expressing the view of the department by the Board for the purpose of general guideliness to be taken into consideration. ( 19 ) THEREFORE, circular issued by the Board either earlier or later, do not bind subject of the courts. However, one has to remember that under the scheme of Income tax Act, under Sec. 116, Act provides various Income tax authorities for the purpose of implementing provisions of the Act. Central Board of Direct Taxes is the Apex Body entrusted with the duty of implementating fiscal Statutes which fall in the category of direct Taxes. It has also a authority to issue instructions and guidelines for proper administration of the Act which are binding on all its subordinate authorities and is limb of Finance Ministry which is the framer of any fiscal provisions to be enacted. "contemporanea expositio" is well known doctrine for interpreting a statute by reference to the exposition it has received from contemporary authority, though it must give way where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. "contemporanea expositio" is well known doctrine for interpreting a statute by reference to the exposition it has received from contemporary authority, though it must give way where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. The "administrative construction" (i. e. , contemporaneous construction placed by administrative or executive officer charged with executing a statute) generally should be clearly wrong before it overturned, such a construction, commonly referred to as practical construction, although non-controlling is nevertheless entitled to considerable weight, it is highly persuasive. A contemporaneous exposition by the administrative authorities is a very useful and relevant guide to the interpretation of the expression used in a statutory instrument. The doctrine of contemporanea expositio is relied to remove any possible ambiguity in the understanding of the language of the relevant statutory instrument. The aforesaid principle was approved by Their Lordship of the Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese vs. ITO, reported in (1981) 131 itr 597 wherein Their Lordships observed as under: it was clear from these two circulars that the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Which is the highest authority entrusted with the execution of the provisions of the Act, understood Sub-sec. (2) as limited to cases where the consideration for the transfer has been understated by the assessee and this must be regarded as a strong circumstance supporting the construction which we are placing on that Sub-section. " the principle was reiterated and applied by Their Lordships of Supreme Court in indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, reported in AIR 1991 sc 1028 in which it was said, while interpreting tariff item No. 26-AA:". . . . . . The practice of the Department in assessing the poles to duty (except in cases where they were exempt as the conditions in the exemption notifications were fulfilled) and the issue of notifications from time to time ( the first of which was almost contemporaneous with the insertion of item 26-AA) are being relied upon on the doctrine of contemporanea expositio to remove any possible ambiguity in the understanding of the language of the relevant statutory instrument:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applying the principle of these decisions, that a contemporaneous exposition by the administrative authorities is a very useful and relevant guide to the interpretation of the expression used in a statutory instrument, we think the assessees contention that this products fall within the purview of item 26-AA should be upheld. " ( 20 ) HERE we must remined ourselves that the conclusion to which we have arrived above about the interpretation of word "any contract" an "contract" in context of Sec. 194-C is supported by strong circumstance about interpretation which Finance Ministry and Board entrusted with execution of the provisions of the Act was placed before the subordinate authority and public for clarifying their doubts explaining newly inserted provision in the year 1972. The provision came into force w. e. f. 1. 4. 1972 through Finance act, 1972. As early as in May 1972, vide Circular No. 86 dated 29. 5. 1972, Finance ministry stated that the deduction of income tax will be made from sums paid for carrying out any work or for supplying labour for carrying out any work. In other words, the new provision will apply only in relation to "works contracts" and "labour contracts " and will not cover contracts for sale of goods. It was also clearly stated that contracted for rendering professional services by lawyers, physicians, surgeons, engineers, accountants, architects, consultants etc. , can also not be regarded as contracts "for carrying out any work" and, accordingly, no deduction of income tax will be made from payments relating to such contracts. Soon after issuance of circular dated 29. 5. 1972, the Board issued circular No. 98 dated 26. 9. 1972 with reference to specific querries stating in to uncertain terms that a "transport contract" cannot ordinarily be regarded as "contract for carrying out any work" and as such, no deduction in respect of income tax is required to be made from payments made under such a contract. It made it clear that in the case of composite contract involving transport as well as loading and unloading, the entire contract will be regarded as "works contract" and income tax will have to be deducted from payments made thereunder. It made it clear that in the case of composite contract involving transport as well as loading and unloading, the entire contract will be regarded as "works contract" and income tax will have to be deducted from payments made thereunder. It also clarified in answer to querry No. 7 relating to commission agents for arranging sales or advertising agents rendering professional services that the "service contracts" not involving the carrying out of any work are outside the scope of the provisions. This view is expressed by the highest authority under Income Tax Act was put in practice and was followed uniformly until the decision in Associated Cement Company ltd. came in relying on which Board decided to turn back on the clarification issued by it since commencement of the provisions by holding out that Supreme Court has altered the interpretation given by the department. This brings for consideration the question whether associated Cement Co. s case lays down any law contrary to what was the law understood by the department as well as assessee in any manner in so far as the question as to deduction in respect of service contracts or in respect of rendering professional service are concerned. . ( 21 ) ON careful reading of said decision, we are of the opinion that no upturning of usage or practice followed by the department as per it own instructions contained in two circulars referred to above can be spelt out from the decision in Associated Cement Co. s case. One cannot fail to notice that it was a case in which question directly related to contract of loading packed cement bags from its packing plants into wagons and trucks. That is to say, it was not a case of work contract, but case of labour contract. Limited argument which was raised before Their Lordships of Supreme Court was that only labour contract comes within the ambit of scope of Sec. 194-C to carry out a works contract or the contract to supply labour to carry out a works contract and not any other labour contract. This contention was rejected by Their Lordship while observing as under :". . . . . SEC. This contention was rejected by Their Lordship while observing as under :". . . . . SEC. 194 (1) had a wide import and covered "any work" which could be got carried out through a contractor under a contract including the obtaining of supply of labour under a contract with a contractor for carrying out any work. The section was not confined or restricted in its application to "works contract". THEIR Lordships of Supreme Court further observed that:" That but for the specific inclusion of those words (i. e. , "including supply of labour for carrying out any work"), in Sec. 149-C obtaining of supply of labour for carrying out the work would have fallen outside the word "work". The above observation of the Supreme Court brings out the true puport of the term "any work" in Sec. 194-C. ( 22 ) ON the pains of repetition, it may be noticed that in first circular issued by the finance Ministry, position regarding loading and unloading contract was qualified by stating that in the case of composite contract involving transport as well as loading and unloading, the entire contract will be regarded as "work contract" and income-tax will have to be deducted from payments made thereunder. Where, however, the element of labour provided for loading and unloading is negligible, no income tax will be deductible, is clearly indicative of fact that while loading and unloading of goods meant for transport work was the activity falling in the category of carrying out any work, supply of labour simplicitor was only within the scope of rendering services and where loading and unloading activity was primary activity to be carried out by the contractor, supply of labour for that purpose was stated to be coming within the purview of supply of labour or carrying out any work. That is the meaning which has been assigned by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court to the activity of loading cement bags for transportation in associated Cement Co. Ltd. s case. It, therefore, cannot be said that such an eventuality of compelling nature had happened which justified deviation from "administrative construction" by administrators or executive officers charged with execution of Status and had been in usage or practice for a period over 22 years without there being any doubt expressed about it by any party. Ltd. s case. It, therefore, cannot be said that such an eventuality of compelling nature had happened which justified deviation from "administrative construction" by administrators or executive officers charged with execution of Status and had been in usage or practice for a period over 22 years without there being any doubt expressed about it by any party. ( 23 ) IN our conclusion, we are further strengthened from the fact that the legislature intended to make a separate provision for bringing the service contract and professional service within the purview of provisions relating to tax deduction at source, by Finance bill 1987 which has been quoted above. Once again in Finance Bill 1995, similar insertion has been proposed. Had the services rendered by the professionals like advocates, CAs, Engineers, Physicians, Architects etc. , were already within the scope and ambit of Sec. 194-C, the legislature would not have resorted to this exercise. It cannot be assumed that legislature uses or indulges in exercise for bringing something by way of surpluses. Likewise, it may be noticed that profession/business of advertising, broadcasting and telecasting including production of programme for such broadcasting or telecasting, carriage of goods by railway etc. , which are being now been designed to be inserted in expression "work" under Sec. 194-C has only been intended to be given effect w. e. f. 1. 7. 1995. In view of this clear intention of inclusion being effective from prospective date, it is clear indicative of fact that the proposed amendment is not brought by way of clarification of any existing provisions but is intended to bring substantial change in the existing provision which is intended to bring substantial change in existing provision. We may not be taken to have construed existing provision with the aid of proposed amendment, but we have referred to them only by way o strengthening conclusion which we have arrived independently of it. ( 24 ) IN our conclusion, we are fortified by catena of decisions of various High Courts. ( 25 ) IN Chamber of Income-tax Consultants and Ors. vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors. , reported in 209 ITR 660, Bombay High Court was concerned with examining validity and constitutionality of the very same circulars in the context of Sec. 194-C with which we are concerned. ( 25 ) IN Chamber of Income-tax Consultants and Ors. vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors. , reported in 209 ITR 660, Bombay High Court was concerned with examining validity and constitutionality of the very same circulars in the context of Sec. 194-C with which we are concerned. It related to and arose out of a petition filed by Chamber of income-tax Consultants, Forum of Indian Professional Organisations, CAs. The Bombay high Court distinguished Associated Cement Co. Ltd. s, case (Supra) in the following terms:" A reading of the above observations of the Supreme Court in the Context of the controvercy before it makes it absolutely clear that the Supreme Court did not intend to give an extended meaning to the expression "any work" so as to include professional services within its ambit. The Supreme Court interpreted the expression "any work" to decide whether it was confined to works contract as argued by the appellant before it or it was applicable to labour contracts also. It is in this context that the Supreme Court observed that "any work" means any work and hot only "works contract. ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If we read the decision of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. s case (1993) 201 ITR 435 in the light of the principles set out above, it will be abundantly clear that the only question that fell for determination was whether the applicability of Sec. 194-C was confined to "works contracts" only as contended by the assessee. The Supreme Court decided only this limited question and held that there was no reason to curtail or cut down the meaning of the plain words used in Sec. 194-C to confine or restrict it to "works contracts". It was in this context that the Supreme Court held that the "work" envisaged in Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 194-C has a wide import and covers any work which one or other of the organisations specified in the sub-section can be carried out through a contractor under a contract. This was also the consistant stand of the Revenue ever since the incorporation of Sec. 194-C. The assessee sought to challenge the same and contended that Sec. 194-C was applicable only to "works contracts" which produces a tangible property and not to labour contracts. This was also the consistant stand of the Revenue ever since the incorporation of Sec. 194-C. The assessee sought to challenge the same and contended that Sec. 194-C was applicable only to "works contracts" which produces a tangible property and not to labour contracts. It is this contention of the assessee which was repelled by the Supreme Court and the interpretation put by the Revenue on sec. 194-C was upheld. No other question fell for determination in that judgment. It is, therefore evident that the Central Board of Direct Taxes committed a manifest error in reading the above decision in the way it has done in its impugned circular and reversing the interpretation consistantly put by it on Sec. 194-C of the Act for the last two decades purportedly in the light of the said decision of the Supreme Court. " ( 26 ) IT has been further observed by the High Court as under by adopting well-known canon of contemporanea expositio for interpretation of Sec. 194-C :" The impugned action of the Central Board of Direct Taxes is also against the well-settled principle of construction of fiscal statutes that the interpretation of a provision in a taxing statute rendered years back and accepted and acted upon should not be easily departed from except for compelling reasons. The circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes during the last two decades explaining the scope and ambit of Sec. 194-C are clearly in the nature of contemporanea expositio which can legitimately be used as aids in the construction of the said provision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the language of Sec. 194-C is plain and unambiguous and leave no scope for any controversy in regard to its interpretation. In such a situation, the earlier circulars of the Central Board of Direct Taxes explaining the scope and ambit of Sec. 194-C must be regarded as strong circumstances in support of the construction that Sec. 194-C is not applicable to payments by way of professional fees. " ( 27 ) THE aforesaid principle was followed and applied by the Bombay High Court again in the case of Bombay Goods Transport Assoc. and Anr. " ( 27 ) THE aforesaid principle was followed and applied by the Bombay High Court again in the case of Bombay Goods Transport Assoc. and Anr. vs. Central Board of Direct taxes and Ors, reported in 201 ITR 136 which related to the transport carriers wherein after considering the decision in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. s case (Supra) and keeping in view judgment of Supreme Court has to be read subject to the facts directly presented for consideration before it and not affecting those matters which may lurk in the record, observed that:"the controversy before the Supreme Court was limited to the applicability of sec. 149-C to labour contracts. " ( 28 ) THE Supreme Court did not approve the narrow construction of the expression"any work" to include only "works contracts" and affirmed the interpretation on Sec. 194-C of the Act to include not only works contracts but also "labour contracts" would have fallen outside the work envisaged by Sec. 194-C but for its specific inclusion in sub-sec. (1 ). The expression "any work" used in Sec. 194-C means "works contracts" and "contracts for work i. e. , "labour contracts" but not service contracts or "transport contracts". On these reasonings, it held that the provisions of Sec. 149-C are not applicable to contracts for mere carriage of goods which do not include any other service like loading and unloading. IN the case of S. R. F. Finance Ltd. vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors. , reported in 211 ITR 861, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court came to the same conclusion about ratio of Supreme Court decision in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. s case and meaning of "any work" vis-a-vis "contract" for the purpose of Sec. 149-C and held :"the word "work" may have different and wider meanings but one has to find out the real meaning of the word in the context of its setting in Sec. 149-C. The meaning attributable should fit into the clause "for carrying out any work" An Architect is not engaged to carry out the work of drawing a sketch. A lawyer is not engaged to carry out the work of arguing a case; he is engaged to "argue" a case or to "conduct" a case he is paid a fee for the services rendered by him and not any price of the work done by him. A lawyer is not engaged to carry out the work of arguing a case; he is engaged to "argue" a case or to "conduct" a case he is paid a fee for the services rendered by him and not any price of the work done by him. " it is further held that :" It is most inappropriate to equate the rendering of a service with carrying out a work. That is why Parliament thought it expedient to expand the meaning of the word "work" by including in it the supply of labour. It is obvious that because the word "work" would not include within its amplitude the supply of labour, Parliament added the same by including the latter in the former, thereby giving the word "work" an extended meaning. The expanded meaning cannot travel beyond the actual extended area; Parliament had stretched the scope of the word to some extent only. " ( 29 ) IT also relied on the doctrine of Contemporanea Expositio. While considering the decision Associated Cement co. Ltd. s, case (Supra), the High Court followed the view expressed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Chamber of Income-tax Consultants and Ors. , (Supra ). We have been informed that SLP filed against aforesaid decision of chamber of Income-tax Consultants and Ors. , (Supra) has been rejected. The said fact has also been noticed in 212 ITR Statute Section. ( 30 ) AS a result of aforesaid discussion, we holds that engagement for professional service or services simplicitor which do not involve contract for carrying out any work itself, or contract for labour for carrying out such services, are not within the purview of Sec. 194-C of the Act as it exists. Therefore, the contract for advertising, contract of goods transport simplicitor, persons engaged in the business of Broker as commission agent without carrying any work for his principal or professionals rendering professional services by charging fees during the course of the profession, are not amenable to the provisions of Sec. 194-C of the Act. The earlier Circular No. 86 dated 29. 5. 1992 and Circular No. 98 dated 26. 9. The earlier Circular No. 86 dated 29. 5. 1992 and Circular No. 98 dated 26. 9. 1992 contemporaneously clarifying the ambit and scope of the provisions concerning to service contract held out the correct view and there was no justification for issuing instructions to alter said construction on the basis of the decision in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. , (Supra) as observed above. ( 31 ) ACCORDINGLY, Circular No. 666 dated 8. 10. 1993 and Circular No. 681 dated 8. 3. 1994 are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in each petition. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in each petition. .