https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788886 Legal services supplied by an individual advocate to a partnership firm of advocates were covered by notifications that exempted such services and placed any tax burden under the reverse charge framework with nil liability on the service provider. On that basis, the service tax demand against the advocate could not be sustained, as the order-in-original was contrary to binding notifications and passed without jurisdiction. The Bombay HC also treated the recovery notice as consequential to the unsustainable demand. The levy, the impugned order, and the recovery notice were quashed. en-us Wed, 18 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:29:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788886 Legal services supplied by an individual advocate to a partnership firm of advocates were covered by notifications that exempted such services and placed any tax burden under the reverse charge framework with nil liability on the service provider. On that basis, the service tax demand against the advocate could not be sustained, as the order-in-original was contrary to binding notifications and passed without jurisdiction. The Bombay HC also treated the recovery notice as consequential to the unsustainable demand. The levy, the impugned order, and the recovery notice were quashed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 18 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788886