Pavan Kumar Tiwari vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors

Held

The Court acknowledged the submission by the revenue's counsel that if the petitioner is indeed a practicing lawyer and his income is solely derived from his profession, he would not be liable for service tax. Based on this concession, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a response to the respondent-authorities clarifying his professional status and income source. Upon receiving this clarification, the authorities were instructed to take necessary steps to recall the demand-cum-show cause notices. The Court did not delve into the specific provisions of the GST Act or prior precedents, relying instead on the parties' submissions. The issue of the petitioner's actual tax liability was not definitively decided but was to be resolved based on the petitioner's response and the authorities' subsequent action.

Facts

The petitioner, Pavan Kumar Tiwari, a practicing lawyer, challenged demand-cum-show cause notices dated November 7, 2019, and November 8, 2019, issued by the Assistant Commissioners of CGST, Guwahati Divisions. The petitioner contended that as a practicing lawyer, his professional income is not subject to service tax. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General, conceded that if the petitioner's income is solely from his legal profession, he would not be liable for service tax. The court was asked to decide on the validity of these notices and the petitioner's liability.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand-cum-show cause notices dated 07.11.2019 and 08.11.2019 are beyond the competence of the issuing authorities, considering the petitioner is a practicing lawyer and not liable for service tax on his professional income? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices were issued by authorities lacking the competence to demand service tax from him, as his income is derived solely from his professional practice as a lawyer, which is not taxable under service tax laws. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Assistant Solicitor General, conceded that if the petitioner's income is exclusively from his professional practice as a lawyer, then he would not be liable to pay service tax. They did not present arguments against the petitioner's claim but indicated a willingness to withdraw the notices if the facts were as stated by the petitioner.