Mr. Rajamuri Venkata Rama Reddy, Advocate V. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Mahabubnagar GST Range and Superintendent of Central Tax, Mahabubnagar GST Range and Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate and Chief Commissioner of GST and Customs, Hyderabad Zone and Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue

WP/7934/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Rajamuri Venkata Rama Reddy, an advocate, who challenged an order by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Mahabubnagar, which held him liable to pay service tax on his income from legal services. The petitioner argued that he was exempt from such tax under specific government notifications. The respondents, including various tax authorities and the Union of India, did not contest the exemption during the proceedings. The court examined the notifications, the income tax returns, and the lack of proper notice to the petitioner before passing the order. The court concluded that the order imposing service tax was not sustainable and thus set it aside.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799760 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Finance Act, 1994, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DOMINIC FERNANDES; B MUKHARJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: A V A KARTIKEYA
• Keywords: Exemption; Legal profession; Natural Justice; Service tax; Writ petition
• Section: 226; 174(2)

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 7934 OF 2023 Between: AND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Mr. Rajamuri Venkata Rama Reddy, S/o Sri R.Anantha Reddy, Aged 62 years, Occ.. Advocate, No 7-14-141A, Venkateswara Colony, Mahabubhagar - 509 001 , Telangana. ...PETITIONER The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Mahabubnagar GST Range, H. No.. 10-6-40/10/2, Srinivasa Colony, Mahabubnagar - 509 001 , Telangana. The Superintendent of Central Tax, Mahabubnagar GST Range, H. Nb.. 10-6- 4011012, Srinivasa Colony, Mahabubnagar - 509 001, Telangana. The Commissioner of Central Excise, , Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Ramkoti, Hyderabad - 500 001 , Telangana. The Chief Commissioner of GST and Customs, Hyderabad Zbne, GST Bhavan, L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-1'10 001 ...RES'ONOENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ, Order or Direction one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the order of the 1 st Respondent (Order - in - Original No.. 7312022 - S.T. (Adjn.)) dated 25.11.2O22 (served on 25.01.2023), passed vide DlN. 2O221156YQO00000A748, under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 r/w Sec. '1 74(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as bad in [aw, arbitrary, mechanical, violative of principles of natural justice, without iurisdiction, barred by limitation and in direct violation of the law and the interim orders passed by this Hon'ble Court, set aside the same, and consequently direct the Respondents to drop all further proceedings in this regard. 2 lA NO: 'f OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, pursuant to the order of the 1st Resporrdent (Order - in - Original No.. 7312022 - S.T. (Adin.)) dated 25-11.2022 (served on 25.O1.2023), passed vide DlN. 20221156YO000000A748, under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 r/w Sec. 17 4(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2O17 , pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI B. MUKHARJEE FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY.SOLICITOR GEN OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI {I.P. No. 7934 of2023 ORI)ER:6rer T1o n'ble Si Justice P.SAMI KOSHY) Heard Mr.A.V.A.Siva karitkeya, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Dominic Femandis, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.l to 4 and Mr.B.Mukharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Dcputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.5. Perused the material available on record. 2. The present writ petition filed assailing the order in original passed by the 1't respondent holding that the petitioner is liabte to pay service tax from the income earned from his profession, which is a legal profession. 3. The primary contention o[ thc learncd counsel of the petitioner is that the Govemment of lndia itself has vide its notification Nos. 12 and 1 3 of 2017 under the GST law and notification Nos.25 and 30 of 2012 under the Service Tax have specifically exempted the lawyers from the purview of the service tax as also from the purview of the GST. This fact is not controverted by the learned counsel for the Department. 4. Perusal of the impugned order, what reflect is that the authorities concemed have primarily proceeded and passed upon the information -/v 2 that they had collected form the lncome Tax Departmt:nt. There is specific avement of fact by the petitioner that no notice whatsoever was either served upon the petitioner before the impugned order vyas passed. 5. Learned counsel for the Department is also not in a position to establish whether the alleged notices which were issued have been duly served upon the petitioner or not 6. Further, from the perusal of the return which the petitioner has fi led before the Income Tax Authorities and also considerinli the audit report of the Chartered Accountant, it specifically reflects that the entire income of the petitioner was from the legal prof.ession alone. 7. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of ,.he case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order so f_ar.as the ordering the petitioner to be liable to pay service tax for the incorne that is received from legal profession is not sustainabte. In the light ot'the noti,rcations referred to in the preceding paragraph, the writ petition to the aficresaid extent deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed. 8 Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. 3 9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTH-Y ASSTSTANT REGISTSaR -t* L SECilOd OFFICER To, '1 . The Assistant Commissioner_of Central Tax, Mahabubnagar GST Range, H. _ No.. 10-6-40/10/2, Srinivasa Colony, Mahabubnaqar- 5OO 001. Telanolna.\" 2. The. Supe_rintendent of Centrat Tax, Mahabubnaglr GST nang;, H. ti6- 1t_O_ 4011012, Srinivasa Colony, Mahabubnagar - 509'b01 , Telanga'ira. 3. The Commissioner of Cehtral Excise, , Ranga Reddy GST dommisslonerate, lgsn-e.tt Bhavan, Tilak Road, Ramkoti,-nyOe-rabaO - f;OO OOt, ietinga;i. -'-' 4. The Chief Commissioner of GST and Cu3toms, Hyderabad Zone, e\"Sf - _ Bhavan, L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004. ielanoana. 5. The Secretary Union of lndia, Ministry oI Finahce, Oepartment oiR;GnG, - North Block, New Delhi-1 10 001 6. One CC to SRI.GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY.SOLICIToR GENERAL oF rNDtA [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRl. A. V. A. S|VA KART|KEYA, Advocate tOpUCl 8. One CC to SRl. DOMIN|C FERNANDES, Advocate tOpUCl 9. Two CD Copies 2. BM GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0911112023 'LA 1 4., ,,I. s C.: !!r u i t') ,i * ! (J ^q T F a) ORDER WP.No.7934 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRITPETITION WITHOUT COSTS %r' G iJ -) 11,) "