Judgment :- Both the Writ Petitions were filed by the Society challenging vires of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 as well as the showcause notice issued pursuant to the said provision. Pending writ petition, this Court did not grant any Stay. 2. On notice from this Court in W.P. (MD) No.351 of 2009, a counter affidavit, dated 13.10.2009, has been filed, justifying the showcause notice and the vires of the Section 66A. However, the issue raised in the writ petition is no longer res-integra. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had an occasion to deal with the provision in Indian National Ship Owners Association Vs. Union of India reported in 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.) The matter was taken to the Supreme Court in a Special Leave to appeal Civil No.18932/2009 by the Union of India and the Supreme Court had dismissed the said Leave Appeal. 3. It is now stated that subsequent to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, by a Circular dated 30.06.2010 in F.No.275/7/2010 CX.BA, directed the authorities to abide the terms of the Circular for all future assessment. In paragraph Nos.3 to 5 of the Circular, it was directed as follows:- “3. In view of the above the accepted position is that, (i) in case of taxable service provided by a non-resident, not having office/establishment in India, and received in India, the service tax liability arises w.e.f. 1.1.2005, on reverse charge basis on the recipient of service in India. Therefore, the overall facts and circumstances of each case needs to be taken into account to determine whether service is received in India or otherwise. (ii) in case of taxable service received outside India by a person, who is resident in India or has place of business/business establishment in India, the service tax liability arises w.e.f. 18.4.2006, as is in the case of INSA, where services were received outside India for use in the ships and vessels located outside India. 3.1 However, the ratio decidendi of aforementioned judgment in the case of M/s. INSA appears to have applied wrongly in a few subsequent cases by the Courts to arrive at the conclusion that service tax would not be leviable before 18.04.2006, even on services received in India, when provided by a non resident. 3.1 However, the ratio decidendi of aforementioned judgment in the case of M/s. INSA appears to have applied wrongly in a few subsequent cases by the Courts to arrive at the conclusion that service tax would not be leviable before 18.04.2006, even on services received in India, when provided by a non resident. One such case is M/s. Unitech vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi (2009 (15) STR 385 (Del.)), wherein Hon’ble High court of Delhi, applying the ratio of M/s. INSA case has held that service tax liability on the architectural service provided by a non resident to M/s. Unitech in India would arise w.e.f.18.04.2006. This order has not been accepted, as Department is of the view that service tax liability in such cases arises w.e.f.1.1.2005, on reverse charge basis, in view of the ratio laid down in the aforementioned cases of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd and M/s. Aditya Cement. Accordingly, an SLP has been filed before the Hon’ble supreme Court in this case. 4. In view of the above, the field formations are directed to defend the view that the levy of service tax on taxable services received in India from a non-resident, no having any office in India, arises on reverse charge basis, w.e.f. 1.1.2005 as has been upheld by the Apex Court in the cases of M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd and M/s. Aditya Cement ltd., distinguishing such cases on facts from INSA case. However, levy of service tax in respect of cases where service is received outside India would follow the ratio in the aforementioned case of M/s. INSA vs UOI. 5. Accordingly, it may be critically examined in pending disputes as to whether the service was received in India or outside India and appropriate action may please be taken for resolution of such disputes.” 4. In the light of the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.) (cited supra) both Writ Petitions are liable to be rejected. However, it is suffice it to say that the liability of the petitioners has to be worked out only from 18.04.2006. 5. With the above observations, both the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.