Mohammad Ismail vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Mohd. Saleemuddin, an advocate, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original No. 149/2023-24-ST dated 31.10.2023, passed by Respondent No. 4 (Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax). This order demanded Service Tax, levied penalties, and directed the filing of ST-3 Returns. The Petitioner contended that as an advocate, he was exempt from Service Tax under Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. The Petitioner relied on a previous judgment of this Court in W.P.No.25865 of 2023, which dealt with similar circumstances and a similar notification. The Revenue acknowledged that the facts of the present case appeared similar to the previously decided case.
Held
The Court held that considering Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012, the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the respondents is set aside/quashed. The matter is remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration. This fresh consideration is subject to the condition that the Petitioner furnishes all relevant materials pertaining to the profession he carries on and that his income is exclusively derived from that profession. The Court directed the Petitioner to enter appearance before Respondent No. 4 on or before 05.03.2024, without the necessity of a fresh notice, and to submit his contentions and submissions. The ratio decidendi is that if a taxpayer falls within the ambit of an exemption notification and the facts are similar to a precedent, the matter should be reconsidered by the assessing authority with due regard to the notification and the taxpayer's submissions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner, being an advocate, is exempt from the payment of Service Tax in terms of Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012, as argued by the Petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that he is an advocate and, therefore, entitled to exemption from Service Tax as per Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. He relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.No.25865 of 2023, where a similar order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration based on the aforesaid notification. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue acknowledged that the facts of the present case appear to be similar to the facts of W.P.No.25865 of 2023, which was decided by this Court.
Sections Cited
Notification No. 25 of 2012
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER:(per Hon'ble SiJustice P.SAM KOSHE) Heard Mr.M.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Mukharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Gadi praveen, Iearned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for the respondenr No. 1 and Mr.Dominic Fernandis, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 . Perused the material on record.
The instant writ petirion has been filed assailing the order dated 3I.1O.2023 passed by the respondent No.4 in OIO No.149l23-24-ST.
The challenge in the presenr ,,r,rit petition is that the petitioner being a lawyer by profession was exempted from the payment of service ta_x in terms of the Notification dated 20.06.2O 12 t.e., vide Norifi car io n N o.25 I 20 12. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Division Bcnch of rhis Court passed in 2 PSK,J & NTJ J W.P.No.2888 of 2024 W.P.No.25B65 of 2023, whereby under similar circumstlnces, the impugned order was set aside and the matter uas remanded back to the accessing authority for fresh con sideration in terms of the aforesaid notification.
Learned counsel for the Depa-rtment submits that it appears t.hat the facts of the present case are similar to the facts of V/.P.No.25865 of 2023 decided on 19.O9.2023. 6. Tal. ing into consideration the notification dated 20.06.2012 i.e., Notification No.25 of 2012, the impugned order deted 31.1O.2O23 passed by respondents is set aside/quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration subject to the petitione:' furnishing all relevant materials, so far as the professio n that he carries on and the income being exclusively from the said profession.
In vien' of the lact that the matter is being remanded back, 1et the petitioner enter appearance before respondent No.4 on or before O5.O3.2O24 . [t is made clear that there shall be :ro necessitl, of issuance of new fresh notice to the petitioner'. The petitioner is expected to enter appearance I
3 PSI(,J & iv:r&,J W.P.No.2888 o;f 2O24 and furnish whatever contentions and submissions he has in support of his pleadings.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to l.t: 1l I ,// DY S RAR SECTION OFFI CER P. PADMANABHA ASSISTANT REGI -ito',. -n" Principal Secletary' Union of lndia' Ministry of Finance' North Block' New 2 3 Delhi -1 10001 r - ^sroner of central Tax, l.tv-a^e1q.639 CGST U",,.n':! l]? Bijt",t"G"#$i"J;;'Il a'! i" "iol g h' H vo e rd uao- i o0 oo4 - i}#ii*'jffi **'"ffi ifitri jfl :$31k:+'to$#' ll:*egrs$h***di'r3i[,1rffi ,isoi:lsfll'ffi ,,:l:F#' 'ot;" "" to snrl&or PRA'EEN KUMAR' Dv' sollclroR GEN' oF INDIA ,gf:'fiB'.fl ii#uluEl,rHcBBi:'^'f,I3[?3,',]E'*' 4 5 6 7 8 Two CD CoPies BM cLe\^--- x 1 I I : lil
ORDER WP.No.28i38 of 2024 HIGH COT'RT DATED:0ti/O2/ I 2 t [, ti tr I il e ll r & &424 fr r $ il il .: I I i I I I II I I I i i '\-, ',.:,." ,) I :iJ 21 t[ii .I * n,!:ll t r I ALLOWINI3 TJ WITHOUT COS E WRITPETITION TS I I I \\\ 1^ -.: "., . : o rt t ---'
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.