Alok Kaushal vs. Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division Ii, Patiala And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Alok Kaushal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division-II. This order levied tax on legal consultancy services provided by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that these services were exempt from service tax under Notifications Nos. 25/2012-ST and 30/2012-ST, and that they should be taxable under the Reverse Charge mechanism. The respondent, Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division-II, on instructions, conceded that the matter required re-examination. Consequently, the respondent requested that the matter be remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division-II for fresh consideration.
Held
The Court set aside the order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division-II. The Court held that the matter should be re-examined by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division-II. The reasoning was based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent, who conceded that the matter required re-examination. The Court therefore remanded the matter back to the respondent No.1 (Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division-II) to decide afresh in accordance with law. No specific finding was given on the taxability or exemption of the services, as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and remand the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the legal consultancy services provided by the petitioner are taxable under the Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, or were exempt under prior service tax notifications. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the legal consultancy services provided by them are exempt from the levy of service tax. They relied on Notifications Nos. 25/2012-ST and 30/2012-ST, which they contended exempted these services. They also suggested that if taxable, it should be under the Reverse Charge mechanism. Revenue's arguments: The respondent, on instructions, did not contest the petitioner's claim for re-examination. They stated that the matter needed to be re-examined by the original authority and requested a remand.
Sections Cited
Notifications Nos. 25/2012-ST, 30/2012-ST
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-1345-202
IN T
Alok Kaushal
Deputy Commis
CORAM : HON HO
Present: Mr. S
Mr. S SUDEEPTI SH
The 17.11.2023 pass whereby the tax petitioner.
Lea services rendere are taxable unde and 30/2012-ST
Per respondent No. shall be re-exam Deputy Commis
We 24 (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-
CW
De
VERSUS ssioner, CGST Division-II and O N'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN N’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for th Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing Cou -.-
HARMA, J.
e challenge in the present wr sed by respondent No.1- Deputy x has been levied on the legal co arned counsel for the petitioner ed by Advocate are otherwise ex er the Reverse Charge in view of T dated 20.06.2012. r contra, learned counsel for th 1- Deputy Commissioner, CGST mined, therefore, the same be re ssioner, CGST Division-II. e have heard learned counsel for -1- JAB AND HARYANA ARH WP-1345-2024 (O&M) cided on 29.01.2025
....Petitioner Others ....Respondents PALLI EEPTI SHARMA e petitioner. unsel for CBIC rit petition is to the order da y Commissioner, CGST Division onsultancy services provided by contends that the legal consultan xempted from levy of service tax f the Notifications Nos. 25/2012- he respondent, on instructions fr T Division-II, states that the ma emanded back to respondent No the parties.
ated n-II, the ncy x or -ST rom atter o.1- TRIPTI SAINI 2025.01.31 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-1345-202
In v the order dated Division-II, is h decide afresh in 6. Dis
Pen
(ARUN PAL JUDGE
January 29, 202 tripti
Whe
Whe
24 (O&M) view of the statement made by l 17.11.2023 passed by responden hereby set aside. The matter is rem accordance with law. sposed of accordingly. nding applications, if any, also st LLI)
5
ether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking ether reportable
: Yes -2- learned counsel for the responde nt 1- Deputy Commissioner, CG manded back to respondent No.1 tand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
ent, GST 1 to TRIPTI SAINI 2025.01.31 15:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.