Disciplinary Authority Cannot Override Enquiry Officer’s Clean Chit Without Hearing the Employee: Madhya Pradesh High Court Remands Termination for Procedural Lapse Appointment Secured by Misstating Marks Is Void Ab Initio; Human Error No Excuse Where Advantage Gained: Allahabad High Court Appeal Maintainable Despite Modified MACT Award — Kerala High Court Clarifies Scope of Appellate Review in Motor Accident Claims No Notice, No Blacklist: Calcutta High Court Quashes Debarment Over Breach of Natural Justice Prosecution Must Elevate Its Case From Realm Of ‘May Be True’ To Plane Of ‘Must Be True: Orissa High Court Strict Compliance Is the Rule, Not Exception: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Tenant's Plea for Late Deposit of Rent Arrears When Accused Neither Denies Signature Nor Rebuts Presumption, Conviction Must Follow Under Section 138 NI Act: Karnataka High Court A Guardian Who Violates, Forfeits Mercy: Kerala High Court Upholds Natural Life Sentence in Stepfather–POCSO Rape Case Married and Earning Sons Are Legal Representatives Entitled to Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Motor Accident Award to ₹14.81 Lakh Driver Must Stop, Render Aid & Report Accident – Flight from Scene Is an Offence: Madras High Court Convicts Hit-And-Run Accused Under MV Act Delay May Shut the Door, But Justice Cannot Be Locked Out: Gauhati High Court Admits Union of India’s Arbitration Appeal Despite Time-Bar Under Section 30 PC Act | Mere Recovery of Money Is Not Enough—Demand and Acceptance Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Allahabad High Court Slams Bar Council of U.P. for Ex Parte 10-Year Suspension of Advocate Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to End Discrimination Against Ad-Hoc Employees in Allahabad High Court: Orders Reinstatement and Regularizationi Supreme Court Declares CSR a Constitutional Duty to Protect Environment: Orders Undergrounding of Powerlines in Great Indian Bustard Habitat A Minor’s Sole Testimony, If Credible, Is Sufficient for Conviction: Supreme Court Upholds Child Trafficking Conviction Under IPC and ITPA You Can’t Invent Disqualifications After the Bid: Supreme Court Holds Joint Venture Experience Can’t Be Ignored in Tenders High Court Can't Re-Appreciate Evidence or Rewrite Contract to Set Aside Arbitral Award: Supreme Court Reinstates Award Under Quantum Meruit Once Arbitration Invoked, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Weaponised in Civil Disputes: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Former Director in Rent Row Section 319 CrPC | Pursuing Legal Remedies in Higher Forums Is Not ‘Evasion of Trial’; Custody Not Required for Summoned Accused: Supreme Court Order 21 Rule 90 CPC | Undervaluation or Procedural Lapses Constitute ‘Material Irregularity’, Not ‘Fraud’; Separate Suit to Bypass Limitation Impermissible: Supreme Court Order 21 CPC | Separate Suit Challenging Auction Sale Barred for Pendente Lite Transferees; Remedy Lies in Execution Proceedings: Supreme Court Non-Signatories Cannot Force Arbitration: Supreme Court Blocks Claim by Sub-Contractor Against HPCL Agreement to Sell Does Not Create Any Right in Property, Hence No Right to Compensation on Acquisition: Allahabad High Court

Service Tax Cannot Be Levied on Practicing Advocates for Legal Services, Reiterates Orissa High Court

26 May 2025 6:31 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


“Practicing Advocates Are Exempt—No Need to Prove That They Are Lawyers to Avoid Service Tax”:- Orissa High Court decisively quashed a service tax demand of ₹2.14 lakhs imposed on a practicing advocate by the CGST authorities, reaffirming that individual legal practitioners are fully exempt from the levy of service tax for legal services rendered in their professional capacity. Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice B.P. Routray condemned the harassment caused to advocates through unwarranted tax demands, citing existing departmental instructions and prior High Court rulings.

The petitioner, Shivananda Ray, a practicing lawyer at Bhubaneswar, was issued a demand-cum-show cause notice on April 15, 2021, under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, alleging non-payment of service tax amounting to ₹2,14,600 for the financial year 2015–16. A subsequent recovery notice dated January 28, 2025, sought to enforce the recovery of this amount along with a penalty of ₹2,34,600 and applicable interest.

The petitioner challenged these notices on the ground that legal services rendered by practicing advocates are exempt under the negative list provisions and applicable service tax notifications. The Department, however, claimed that the notice was issued based on third-party income disclosures from the Income Tax Department and that the petitioner failed to participate in adjudication, which led to an ex parte order.

Rejection of Tax Demand Against Practicing Advocates:

Citing its earlier judgment in W.P.(C) No. 27727 of 2020 dated March 31, 2021, the Court reminded the Department of settled legal principles:

“The Court expressed its concern that practicing advocates should not have to face harassment on account of the Department issuing notices calling upon them to pay service tax/GST when they are exempted from doing so, and in the process also having to prove they are practicing advocates.”

The Court referred to the binding departmental instructions dated April 9 and April 15, 2021, which explicitly clarified that legal services provided by individual advocates or firms of advocates are exempt unless provided to a business entity exceeding a threshold turnover.

The Bench reiterated that: “In view of the admitted fact that the Petitioner is a practicing lawyer and the earlier directions issued by this court... the Petitioner is exempted from levy of service tax for such income he derived from his legal service as a lawyer.”

Department Permitted to Proceed Only for Income from Non-Legal Sources:

Interestingly, the Court noted that the petitioner had also disclosed rental income from house property in his income tax returns for the assessment years 2018–19 and 2020–21. On this limited point, the Court permitted the Department to initiate proceedings under service tax law, if applicable, but strictly with respect to non-exempt income.

“It is open for the Department... to proceed in respect of the income from house property, if any applicable, to levy service tax in accordance with law.”

The High Court set aside both the show cause notice and the recovery order to the extent they related to professional legal services, reaffirming that such services are non-taxable under the existing framework. The ruling is a strong reiteration that practicing lawyers are protected from arbitrary tax demands and cannot be asked to "prove" their exempt status repeatedly in response to mechanical departmental actions.

Date of Decision: April 7, 2025

Latest Legal News