Aniket Ashokrao Deshmukh vs. The Deputy Commissioner CGST And Cx Division

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties heard finally.

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs:- “a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue of writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of direction calling for the records and proceedings in respect of the Impugned Show Cause Notice dated 19th December, 2020, Impugned Order dated 28th March, 2024 and Communication dated 21st July, 2025 and after going through legality, validity and proprietary thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the same; b. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the effect, operation of the Impugned Order dated 28th March, 2024 and recovery proceedings, if any initiated by the Respondents in furtherance of communication dated 21st July 2025;” Laxmi LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE Date: 2026.03.13 11:40:43 +0530

The challenge as mounted by the Petitioner in the present proceedings is to the show cause notice dated 19th December 2020, the order dated 28th March 2024 and the communication dated 21st July 2025, whereby the recovery of service tax has been initiated under the Service Tax Act, 1994. The Petitioner is a practicing advocate, who by virtue of the impugned show cause notice, is called upon to deposit an amount of Rs. 8,17,490/- as service tax liability being the of India & Others (Writ Petition (L) No. 1684 of 2026 decided on 5th February 2026). The relevant observations as made by this Court in the latter order which is similar to the case in hand, are required to be noted, which reads thus:- “4. The facts lie in a narrow compass:- The petitioner is an advocate registered with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa since 5 February 2007. On 27 October 2021, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging mismatch between the Income Tax Returns and Tax Deducted at Source data and Service Tax-3 returns. Since the notice was Laxmi

It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has contended that the service tax is not leviable on the services provided by an advocate to a partnership firm of advocates in view of Notification No.25/2012-ST issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue as also Notification No.30/2012-ST as issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. In the alternative contended that the services as provided by an advocate is taxable under reverse charge mechanism in view of the notification No.25/12 dated 20 June 2012. The petitioner has also made a grievance that principles of natural justice, in issuing the impugned order, were not followed.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. From the order-in- original, it appears that the genesis of said action taken against the petitioner is on the verification of third party data received by the Income Tax Department for the period 2016-17, when it was observed that there was an apparent mismatch on the payment of service tax and the turnover of the petitioner. It is observed that the petitioner had not discharged / declared her service tax liability correctly for the period 2016-17 which has resulted in evasion of service tax payment and accordingly a show cause notice is stated to have been issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to discharge the service tax liability which was stated to be of Rs.26,81,250/-. Admittedly, no reply to the show cause notice was filed, wherein in similar circumstances, considering the Notification No.25/2012 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) as also Notification No.30/2012 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), the Court accepted the case of the said petitioner that the Designated Officer would not have juri iction to take forward the proceedings inasmuch as the service tax was not leviable on the individual advocate as per the said notifications. The relevant observations as made by the Court in paragraph 7 to 10 read thus: 1 (2024)(15) Centax 124( Bom.) Laxmi

It is thus clear that as set out in the Notification, the taxable service in respect of services provided or to be provided by the individual advocate for a firm of advocates has been set out to be ‘Nil’. Similarly Notification No.25/2012 dated 20th June, 2012, also clearly provides that the service provided by an individual advocate, partnership firm of advocates, by way of legal services being exempted from levy of service tax.

If the aforesaid position is to be the correct position, certainly the Designated Laxmi

We may observe that the notifications which are now placed for consideration of the Court are absolutely clear, they were not the subject matter of consideration in the case of Isha Kiran Jain (cited supra). We are thus of the considered opinion, that no useful purpose would be achieved in present proceeding remanding to the Designated Officer. We deem it fit in the interest of justice to quash and set aside the impugned order, for the reasons that the Designated Officer has acted without juri iction and as the impugned order is passed patently, contrary to the notifications dated 20th June 2012 (supra). The Petition accordingly needs to succeed. It stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).”

The present proceedings also would stand covered by such notifications and the position in law as held by this Court in Advocate Pooja Patil (supra).”

In view of the clear position in law, we are of the opinion that the Petition would be required to be allowed. The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

Rule made absolute in the above terms. No costs. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Laxmi