TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 657
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of direction calling for the records and proceedings in respect of the Impugned Show Cause Notice dated 19th December, 2020, Impugned Order dated 28th March, 2024 and Communication dated 21st July, 2025 and after going through legality, validity and proprietary thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the same; b. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the effect, operation of the Impugned Order dated 28th March, 2024 and recovery proceedings, if any initiated by the Respondents in furtherance of communication dated 21st July 2025;" 3. The challenge as mounted by the Pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lie in a narrow compass:- The petitioner is an advocate registered with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa since 5 February 2007. On 27 October 2021, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging mismatch between the Income Tax Returns and Tax Deducted at Source data and Service Tax-3 returns. Since the notice was dispatched on the old address of the petitioner, the same was not received by the petitioner. Moreover, notices of three personal hearings as scheduled, were also not received by the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, the impugned order dated 15 March 2023 was passed confirming the service tax liability alongwith the interest and penalty. Consequent thereto, on 31 October 2025 a recovery notice under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er had not discharged / declared her service tax liability correctly for the period 2016-17 which has resulted in evasion of service tax payment and accordingly a show cause notice is stated to have been issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to discharge the service tax liability which was stated to be of Rs. 26,81,250/-. Admittedly, no reply to the show cause notice was filed, for the reasons which we have recorded hereinabove. 7. On such backdrop, having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, at the outset at the bar it is accepted that the proceedings would stand covered by the decision of this Court in Advocate Pooja Patil Vs. Deputy Commissioner, CGST And CX Division VI (2024) (15) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 210 (E), dated the 17thMarch, 2012,the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the following taxable services from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66B of the said Act, namely:- 1. Services provided to the United Nations or a specified international organization; 2. Health care services by a clinical establishment, an authorised medical practitioner or para-medics; 3. Services by a veterinary clinic in relation to health care of animals or birds; 4. Services by an entity registered under section 12AA of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2004, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Subsection (i), vide number G.S.R. 849 (E), dated the 31st December, 2004, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby notifies the following taxable services and the extent of service tax payable thereon by the person liable to pay service tax for the purposes of the said sub-section, namely:- I. ................... (II) The extent of service tax payable thereon by the person who provides the service and the person who receives the service for the taxable services specified in (I) shall be as specified in the following Table, namely:- Sl.N. Description of a service Per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt as also a decision of the Jharkhand High Court, the Court observed thus :- "5. The petitioner has also referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.C. Joshi Vs. Union of India [2015 (37) S.T.R. 6] to contend that although the said decision recognised the levy of service tax on advocate, the same has been stayed by the Supreme Court. The Petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Madhu Sudan Mittal Vs. Union of India [2023(70) GSTL 124], to contend that in such decision, the Jharkhand High Court has held that demand notice for payment of service tax on legal services provided by advocate was not sustainable. ....................." 10. We....