Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2024 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 355 - HC - Service TaxLegal Services / Services of an Advocate - Recovery of Service Tax alongwith interest and penalty - several procedural illegalities, amounting to a breach of the principles of natural justice, in passing the order - HELD THAT:- It appears that the Petitioner was not granted an opportunity of an appropriate hearing before the impugned Order-in-Original was passed against the Petitioner. Hence, there is substance in the contention as urged on behalf of the Petitioner that in passing the impugned order, there is a breach of the principles of natural justice. To this effect the Petitioner had infact addressed a detailed letter to the Designated Officer dated 18th October, 2023, which was post the hearing, which had taken place on 17th October, 2023 when the Petitioner’s representative/Chartered Account appeared before the Designated Officer, inter alia making such grievance, as also contending that the service tax is not leviable on an individual advocate, under the said notifications issued by the Central Government. As set out in the Notification, the taxable service in respect of services provided or to be provided by the individual advocate for a firm of advocates has been set out to be ‘Nil’. Similarly Notification No.25/2012 dated 20th June, 2012, also clearly provides that the service provided by an individual advocate, partnership firm of advocates, by way of legal services being exempted from levy of service tax. It is observed that the notifications which are now placed for consideration of the Court are absolutely clear, they were not the subject matter of consideration in the case of Isha Kiran Jain [2023 (10) TMI 821 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - no useful purpose would be achieved in present proceeding remanding to the Designated Officer. It is deemed fit in the interest of justice to quash and set aside the impugned order, for the reasons that the Designated Officer has acted without jurisdiction and as the impugned order is passed patently, contrary to the notifications dated 20th June 2012 - petition allowed.
|