Exemption for practicing advocates barred service tax recovery, and writ interference was upheld despite an alternate remedy.

A practicing advocate challenged demand and recovery notices raised towards service tax/GST liability, relying on the exemption for practicing advocates under Notification No. 30/2012-Service Tax. The court treated the demand and recovery action as without jurisdiction because the exemption objection had already been placed before the authority and comparable cases had taken a similar view. The availability of an appeal did not bar writ interference under Article 226. The demand notice and the consequential recovery notice were held unsustainable and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand notice and recovery notice issued towards service tax/GST liability against a practicing advocate, who claimed exemption under Notification No. 30/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012, could be sustained and whether the writ court should interfere.

Analysis: The petitioner's claim of exemption was supported by the notification exempting practicing advocates from service tax, and the objection was also brought to the notice of the authority by representation. The materials showed that a similar view had been taken in comparable cases. In these circumstances, the issuance of the demand and recovery action was treated as having been made without jurisdiction, and the availability of an appeal did not bar interference under Article 226.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded. The demand notice and the subsequent recovery notice were held unsustainable and were quashed.

---