TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8/- towards service tax under the provisions of Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, has been ordered to be recovered from the Petitioner inter-alia with interest and penalty. The operative part of the impugned order reads thus :- "ORDER (i) I confirm the Service Tax demand of Rs. 35,82,298/- (Rupees Thirty Five lakh Eighty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Eight Only) (including E. Cess SHE Cess, Swachh Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess as and where applicable) under the proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) and the same should be recovered from M/s. Pooja Chandrashekhar Pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntended that she is an advocate practicing in this Court. The primary contention of the Petitioner in assailing the impugned order is to the effect that Respondent No. 1 in passing the impugned order has acted in patent lack of jurisdiction, hence, interference of this Court in the present proceeding would be justified. It is contended that apart from this, there are several procedural illegalities, amounting to a breach of the principles of natural justice, in passing such order. 3. The Petitioner has contended that on 5th October, 2023, an email was received by the Petitioner to attend a hearing on 17th October, 2023, on which date, the Petitioner appeared through her Chartered Accountant. On 18th October, 2023, the Petitioner addresse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reof, be pleased to quash and set aside the same;" 4. Mr. Chetan Kapadia, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order would be required to be set aside on two primary grounds. Firstly, that the show-cause notice on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed was neither issued nor received by the Petitioner. It is next submitted that the impugned order is in the teeth of the Respondents own notification(s) dated 20th June, 2012 being Notification No. 25-30/2012-Service Tax, which categorically exempted individual advocates from the purview of taxable services and levy of any service tax. Mr. Kapadia would submit that once the Order-in-Original itself was without jurisdiction and in the teeth o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer, inter alia making such grievance, as also contending that the service tax is not leviable on an individual advocate, under the said notifications issued by the Central Government. 7. In our opinion, what is more fundamental is that the Designated Officer although was pointed out that he would not have jurisdiction to take forward the proceedings, inasmuch as service tax was not leviable on the individual advocate, as per the provisions of notification(s) as noted above, such contention has not been considered by the Designated Officer in passing the impugned order. We may note the relevant extract of each of these Notifications, which reads thus :- Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....over up to rupees ten lakh in the preceding financial year; (b) an individual as an advocate or a partnership firm of advocates by way of legal services to,- (i) an advocate or partnership firm of advocates providing legal services;" (emphasis supplied) .................. Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 30/2012-Service Tax New Delhi, the 20th June, 2012 GSR......(E).-----In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), and in supersession of (i) notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 15/2012-Service Tax, dated the 17th March,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of services provided or agreed to be provided by Government or local authority by way of support service excluding,- (1) renting of immovable property, and (2) services specified in sub-clauses (i),(ii) and (iii) of clause (a) of section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994 Nil 100% (emphasis supplied) 8. It is thus clear that as set out in the Notification, the taxable service in respect of services provided or to be provided by the individual advocate for a firm of advocates has been set out to be 'Nil'. Similarly Notification No.25/2012 dated 20th June, 2012, also clearly provides that the service provided by an individual advocate, partnership firm of advocates, by way of legal services being exempted from....