Case Law Details

Case Name : Devi Prasad Tripathy Vs The Principal Commissioner CGST and Central Excise (Orissa High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(C) No. 27727 of 2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 22/04/2021
Related Assessment Year :

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

A compliance affidavit has been filed by the Principal Commissioner, GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar enclosing the copies of instructions issued on 9th April, 2021 and 15th April, 2021 reiterating, inter alia, that the services provided by an advocate or a partnership firm of advocates providing legal services to any person other than a business entity and to a business entity with a turnover up to rupees ten lakhs in the preceding financial year are exempted from levy of service tax.

In that view of the matter, The impugned notices under Annexures-3 to 8 stands quashed. No further directions are called for in the present petition. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Also Read Interim Order in this Case: Do not harass lawyers exempt from GST by sending notices: Orissa HC

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT

1. The matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. A compliance affidavit has been filed by the Principal Commissioner, GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Bhubaneswar enclosing the copies of instructions issued on 9th April, 2021 and 15th April, 2021 reiterating, inter alia, that the services provided by an advocate or a partnership firm of advocates providing legal services to any person other than a business entity and to a business entity with a turnover up to rupees ten lakhs in the preceding financial year are exempted from levy of service tax. In paras 4 to 6 it has been stated as under:

“4. In view of above it is clearly instructed to all the field formations that utmost diligence may be taken while initiating verification against the entities on the basis of third party information, if it is found that income so reflected is on account of provision of exempted service / negative service, no further action under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 may be initiated.

5. Further, it is noticed that in the process of verification, letters were issued to the same entity by the different field formations causing unnecessary hardship to the party supplying the information. So coordination among the field formations may be maintained so that if information is called for by one of the field formation from a particular entity no further enquiry may be initiated against the same entity by the others.

6. The above instructions may be brought to the notice of all the jurisdictional Range Officers of your jurisdiction for strict compliance.”

3. Identical instructions have been issued both by the Bhubaneswar and Rourkela Commissionerate.

4. In that view of the matter, The impugned notices under Annexures-3 to 8 stands quashed. No further directions are called for in the present petition.

5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

7. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No. 4798, dated 15th April, 2021.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Service Tax

One Comment

  1. vinaipal says:

    As it is ,wherever liabilty is to be fastened it is on the recepient of service as reverse charge and advocate if liable is not responsible for discharge of service tax and now GST.

Leave a Comment

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

Search Posts by Date

May 2021
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31