1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Order Quashed Due to Breach of Natural Justice; Case Remanded for Fresh Hearing on Service Tax Under Finance Act, 1994.</h1> The HC quashed the impugned order dated 14th July 2023, which held the petitioner liable for service tax and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994, due to ... Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of a hearing was not accorded to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order - demand of service tax as well as penalty order on practicing advocate registered with Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. HELD THAT:- The respondent no. 1 needs to hear the petitioner on all the contentions on the issues urged in the present proceedings and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The proceedings are remanded to respondent no. 1/the Assistant Commissioner, for a fresh order to be passed on the notice dated 30th December 2020, after hearing the petitioner on all the contentions the petitioner intends to raise - petition disposed off by way of remand. Issues:The challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated 14th July 2023 by which respondent no. 1 held that the petitioner, a practicing advocate, is liable to pay service tax and penalties under Sections 77(1)(a) and 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994.Natural Justice:The primary contention raised is that the impugned order was passed without according the petitioner an opportunity of a hearing, thus breaching the principles of natural justice.Levy of Service Tax:The petitioner argued that service tax is not leviable on legal services provided by advocates, citing Department's Notification No. 25/2012 Service Tax dated 20th June 2012, which provides for a reverse charge mechanism in case of an Advocate. The petitioner also referred to relevant case laws to support this contention.Court's Decision:The High Court found merit in the petitioner's argument and held that respondent no. 1 needs to hear the petitioner on all contentions before passing a fresh order in accordance with law. Consequently, the impugned order dated 14th July 2023 was quashed and set aside, and the proceedings were remanded for a fresh order to be passed after hearing the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
