Case Law Details

Case Name : Devi Prasad Tripathy Vs. Principal Commissioner CGST and Central Excise (Orissa High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(C) No.27727 of 2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 31/03/2021
Related Assessment Year :

Devi Prasad Tripathy Vs. Principal Commissioner CGST and Central Excise (Orissa High Court)

High Court expresses its concern that practising 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 practising advocates. The Commissioner GST is directed to issue clear instructions to all the officers in the GST Commissionerates in Odisha that no notice demanding payment of service tax/GST will be issued to lawyers rendering legal services and falling in the negative list, as far as GST regime is concerned. Copies of such instructions be placed before the Court on the next date.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER

1. The Counter affidavit sworn to by the Principal Commissioner, GST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Commissionerate on behalf of Opposite Party Nos.1 to 7 is produced in Court today, which is taken on record.

2. It is stated in the said affidavit that “after receiving information from Devi Prasad Tripathy having PAN as being an individual advocate practicing in the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha”, further proceedings against him are dropped.

3. What the Court is concerned about is the deponent insisting that the Petitioner should have submitted “documentary evidence to prove his claim that he is a practicing individual lawyer and does not come under the provision of GST or service tax.”

4. A reference is made to a Notification dated 20th June 2012, in terms of which service tax liability of an individual advocate is Nil for legal services rendered to any of business entities located in the taxable territory. However, even for this, the Department appears to insist that the burden to prove it lies on the Petitioner. The counter affidavit filed acknowledges that a similar notice was issued to the Petitioner in 2017 to which he replied, pointing out how he was not liable to pay any service tax.

5. Mr. P. K. Parhi, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, has fairly admitted that no notice in the first instance ought to have been issued to the Petitioner, who is a practising advocate. However, when specifically asked whether the clear instructions have been issued by the Department to all the officers involved in the enforcement of the GST regime that practising advocates should not be issued notices, he sought time for instructions.

6. During the hearing, certain other advocates present in the Court stated that they too have received such notices. It appears that despite knowing fully well that advocates are not –liable to pay service tax or GST, notices continue to be issued to them by the GST Commissionerate.

7. The Court expresses its concern that practising 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 practising advocates. The Commissioner GST is directed to issue clear instructions to all the officers in the GST Commissionerates in Odisha that no notice demanding payment of service tax/GST will be issued to lawyers rendering legal services and falling in the negative list, as far as GST regime is concerned. Copies of such instructions be placed before the Court on the next date.

8. List on 22nd April, 2021.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Goods and Services Tax

3 Comments

  1. Murali Mohan says:

    The recipient of the service has to pay GST to the service provider. Even if the practising advocates were to pay GST, it’s the recipient (s)/ clients if that advocate has to bear that tax portion in addition to the lawyer’s fee. By exempting GST to the practising advocates, the client is benefitted.

  2. Srinivasan Vedantam says:

    Why advocates alone ? Why other professionals can not be exempted if service done to individuals other than corporates or business houses.?

  3. suryanarayan gopalan says:

    Why are advocates exempt from GST, is it because most politicians are advocates. Supreme court lawyers who charge 25 lks per hearing don’t pay GST ! What an injustice ? Non corporates and individuals don’t even pay on reverse cash basis.
    It’s time this rule is changed.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

April 2021
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930