CESTAT held that service tax demand against an advocate was...

CESTAT held that service tax demand against an advocate was improperly raised. The tribunal found no justification for confirming tax liability on professional fees and rental income, as both the adjudicating authority and appellate authority had previously dropped respective demands. The department failed to produce evidence for extended limitation period, and the appellant had consistently filed returns. Critically, rental income from residential property remains exempt from service tax even when rented to a business entity. The tribunal ruled the impugned order unsustainable and allowed the appeal, effectively quashing the service tax demand against the advocate.

---