https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786384 Exemption for legal services under Notification No. 25/2012 and No. 30/2012 was central, with the court treating the Designated Officer as lacking jurisdiction to pursue service tax where those notifications applied; that finding disposed of the challenge to recovery based on alleged evasion for 2016-17. The judgment relied on prior Bombay HC authority in similar circumstances, noted non filing of a reply to the show cause notice and criticised creation of a lien and recovery without proper jurisdictional basis, emphasizing compliance with principles of natural justice. en-us Thu, 05 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Feb 2026 09:03:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786384 Exemption for legal services under Notification No. 25/2012 and No. 30/2012 was central, with the court treating the Designated Officer as lacking jurisdiction to pursue service tax where those notifications applied; that finding disposed of the challenge to recovery based on alleged evasion for 2016-17. The judgment relied on prior Bombay HC authority in similar circumstances, noted non filing of a reply to the show cause notice and criticised creation of a lien and recovery without proper jurisdictional basis, emphasizing compliance with principles of natural justice. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 05 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786384