Aniket Gupta Vs Union of India and 4 others (Allahabad High Court)
Allahabad HC dismisses advocate’s PIL seeking separate SAC and lower GST for online legal research services, now taxed at 18% under SAC 998431
The Allahabad High Court, in Aniket Gupta Vs Union of India and 4 others, dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the levy of 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on online legal research and legal educational database services. The petitioner, a practising advocate, challenged Serial No. 22 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), the corresponding Uttar Pradesh State GST notification and Notification No. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), as substituted in 2018, insofar as they subjected such services to 18% GST under Service Accounting Code (SAC) 998431, Group 99843, Heading 9984 of the Scheme of Classification of Services, without providing a separate classification or concessional rate.
The petitioner contended that the residual 18% rate had been adopted at the 14th GST Council meeting without specific consideration of online legal research services and had continued without meaningful examination during the September 2025 GST rate rationalisation. He questioned the classification of online legal databases alongside online gaming and streamed digital content despite differences in their purpose and professional utility. Highlighting the alleged disparity, he submitted that printed law reports were exempt as goods, e-books attracted 5% GST under the same serial number, and online educational journals supplied to eligible educational institutions enjoyed exemption under Entry 66(b)(v) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), referring to the Karnataka Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling’s decision in Informatics Publishing. According to the petitioner, these distinctions warranted reconsideration of the existing GST classification and rate structure.
The petitioner further argued that online legal research platforms were essential professional tools enabling advocates to access judgments, verify precedents and ascertain whether judicial decisions remained good law. Referring to the risk of citing overruled or fabricated judgments, he submitted that reliance on such authorities could raise professional misconduct concerns. Accordingly, access to reliable legal databases was a professional necessity rather than a luxury. The petition sought a declaration concerning the impugned tax treatment and directions to the Union Government, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and the GST Council to reconsider the classification and applicable GST rate.
The High Court dismissed the petition at the threshold without examining the substantive GST issues. It observed that the petitioner, who had enrolled as an advocate in 2020 and claimed six years of practice, had not explained what had prompted his sudden awareness of the allegedly excessive rate, which had remained in force since 2017. Finding no satisfactory explanation for the belated challenge, the Court dismissed the public interest litigation. Importantly, the order did not determine whether online legal research services deserved a separate SAC, whether the existing 18% rate was discriminatory, or whether the exemptions and concessional rates cited by the petitioner justified different treatment. The existing GST treatment was left undisturbed, without any adjudication on its substantive validity.
Counsel for Petitioner(s): Shivam Shukla
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner, an Advocate, to question the notifications issued way back in the year 2017 in relation to the taxability of the online legal research and legal educational data based services classified under Service Accounting Code 998431 of Group 99843 of heading 9984 of the Scheme of Classification of Services to tax at the aggregate rate of 18% without any distinct classification or concessional rate.
2. Submissions have been made that for lawyers, it is necessary to have the said online tools available for the purpose of checking the veracity of the judgment to be cited as in case the lawyer cites a judgment, which is overruled and/or is a fake judgment, the same amounts to professional misconduct on the part of the lawyer and, therefore, charging of the GST @ 18% is unreasonable as the same is not a luxury.
3. The petitioner, an Advocate, has nowhere in the petition even indicated as to what suddenly has been the cause for the petitioner to become aware of the rate being higher despite the fact that the rate continues to exist since the year 2017.
4. The petitioner was enrolled in the year 2020 and claims to continue practising for last six years and, therefore, the sudden awareness about the tax being unreasonable and filing of the PIL at the instance of the said petitioner, cannot be countenance. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
