Karthikeyan. T.N. vs. The Assistant Commissionr Of GST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner's submission regarding exemption under Serial No. 6 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 lacked merit, the petitioner, being an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, was not liable to pay service tax. The Court found that although the services provided were taxable, they were taxable on a reverse charge basis as per Notification No. 30/2012, dated June 20, 2012. Therefore, the impugned order, which proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner was not entitled to exemption, was without merit. The Court quashed the impugned order dated June 28, 2022. The respondent was granted liberty to recover the proportionate tax from the persons to whom the petitioner provided such services, who would be liable to pay tax on a reverse charge basis. The Court directed the respondent to collect details from the petitioner for this recovery.

Facts

The petitioner, T.N. Karthikeyan, filed a writ petition challenging Order-in-Original No.216/2022-ST Adjn, dated June 28, 2022, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise. The impugned order confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 14,86,477/- for the period between 2015-2016 and 2017-2018 (up to June 2017). The respondent also imposed interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, and penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the same Act. The petitioner contended that the services provided were exempt under Serial No. 6 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012. The respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner and relied on Supreme Court decisions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the services provided by the petitioner, an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, are liable for service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, for the period between 2015-2016 and 2017-2018 (up to June 2017)? Petitioner's contention: The services provided by the petitioner are exempted under Serial No. 6 of Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012, dated June 20, 2012. Respondent's contention: The petitioner has an alternate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner. The petitioner must prove their entitlement to exemption, citing CCE vs. Harichand Srigopal and State of Jharkhand vs. Abhay Cement.