TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able 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. - G. S. KULKARNI KISHORE C. SANT, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice Tax Rules, 1994 for late/non filing of ST-3 returns beyond the due date and order recovery of the same from M/s. Pooja Chandrashekhar Patil, as discussed under para 15.6 above. 2. The Petitioner has contended that she is an advocate practicing in this Court. The primary contention of the Petitioner in assailing the impugned order is to the effect that Respondent No. 1 in passing the impugned order has acted in patent lack of jurisdiction, hence, interference of this Court in the present proceeding would be justified. It is contended that apart from this, there are several procedural illegalities, amounting to a breach of the principles of natural justice, in passing such order. 3. The Petitioner has contended that on 5th October, 2023, an email was received by the Petitioner to attend a hearing on 17th October, 2023, on which date, the Petitioner appeared through her Chartered Accountant. On 18th October, 2023, the Petitioner addressed a letter to the Designated Officer attaching an email dated 5th October, 2023 which merely referred to the show-cause notice dated 24th December, 2020, which was never received by the Petitioner. It was recorded that even the Chartered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances wherein the Court had interfered. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondents would not dispute the purport of the Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax dated 20th June, 2022 and Notification No. 30/2012-Service Tax dated 20th June, 2022 that the same exempts services provided by individual advocate from levy of the service tax. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the record. At the outset, we may observe 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplied) ... Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 30/2012-Service Tax New Delhi, the 20th June, 2012 GSR (E).----- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), and in supersession of (i) notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 15/2012-Service Tax, dated the 17th March, 2012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 213(E), dated the 17th March, 2012, and (ii) notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 36/2004-Service Tax, dated the 31st December, 2004, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 849 (E), dated the 31st December, 2004, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby notifies the following taxable services and the extent of service tax payable thereon by the person liable to pay service tax for the purposes of the said sub-secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on recognised the levy of service tax on advocate, the same has been stayed by the Supreme Court. The Petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Madhu Sudan Mittal Vs. Union of India [2023(70) GSTL 124], to contend that in such decision, the Jharkhand High Court has held that demand notice for payment of service tax on legal services provided by advocate was not sustainable. ... 10. We may observe 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 (cited supra). We are thus of the considered opinion, that no useful purpose would be achieved in present proceeding remanding to the Designated Officer. We deem it 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 (supra). The Petition accordingly needs to succeed. It stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 11. Disposed of in above terms. No c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
