Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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