Service tax exemption for legal services barred the demand, and the impugned action was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

Binding exemption notifications were applied to legal services supplied by individual advocates and partnership firms, with Notification No. 25/2012 treating such services as exempt from service tax. Following an earlier coordinate bench decision, the Bombay HC noted that the authority could not act contrary to the exemption and that the impugned demand and letter were without jurisdiction. The challenged action was therefore unsustainable in writ jurisdiction, and the service tax demand on legal services was quashed and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order and letter demanding service tax on legal services were liable to be quashed on the ground that the relevant notifications exempted such services and the authority acted without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petition turned on a point already covered by a coordinate bench. The governing notification treated taxable services in respect of services provided by an individual advocate for a firm of advocates as nil, and Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20 June 2012 exempted legal services supplied by an individual advocate or partnership firm of advocates from service tax. In view of that binding exemption, the designated authority could not proceed contrary to the notifications, and the impugned action was therefore without jurisdiction. The earlier decision was followed and the challenged order and letter were found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded and the impugned order and letter were quashed and set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the Rule was made absolute, granting the petitioner complete relief against the service tax demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where binding exemption notifications clearly exclude legal services from service tax, any demand or adjudication contrary to those notifications is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction.

---