TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1641
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to issue a writ of certiorari or order or directions in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction of like nature setting aside Impugned Order issued by Respondent No. 2 (Exhibit-A) and the Impugned Recovery Notice issued by the Respondent No. 3 (Exhibit -B); (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or order or directions in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction of like nature, for directing to Respondent No. 3 to issue a circular to all the banks intimating them of the withdrawal of the Recovery Notice qua the Petitioner; (c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or order or directions in the nature of mandamu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14 October 2022, 21 October 2022 and 14 November 2022. On such show cause notice, impugned order dated 15 February 2023 was passed which was an ex-parte order. The petitioner contends that he never received an effective notice of hearing, even the show cause notice was not served. On 22 September 2023 the petitioner transferred his Bar Council registration to the Bar Council, Delhi. 6. On the basis of the order dated 15 February 2023 passed on the show cause notice, on 31 October 2025 a recovery notice was issued to the petitioner freezing the bank account of the petitioner, about which the petitioner was informed by his bank on 17 January 2026. On 21 January 2026 the petitioner addressed a representation to respondent No.3 stating that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), the Court accepted the case of the said petitioner therein, that the Designated Officer would not have jurisdiction to take forward the proceedings inasmuch as the service tax was not leviable on the individual advocate as per the said notifications. The relevant observations as made by the Court in paragraph 7 to 10 read thus: "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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eligious ceremony; 6. Services provided by- (a) an arbitral tribunal to - (i) any person other than a business entity; or (ii) a business entity with a turnover 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 Finan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds by road Nil 100% 2 In respect of services provided or agreed to be provided by individual advocate or a firm of advocates by way of legal services Nil 100% 3 In 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% 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 dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e achieved in present proceeding remanding to the Designated Officer. We deem it fit in the interest of justice to quash and set aside the impugned order, for the reasons that the Designated Officer has acted without jurisdiction and as the impugned order is passed patently, contrary to the notifications dated 20th June 2012 (supra). The Petition accordingly needs to succeed. It stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a)." 9. The present proceedings also would stand covered by such notifications and the position in law as held by this Court in Advocate Pooja Patil (supra). 10. In supporting such contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the recent decision of this Court in Manisha Rajiv Shroff Vs. The Union....