9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for a fresh order to be passed on the notice dated 30th December 2020, after hearing the petitioner on all the contentions the petitioner intends to raise - petition disposed off by way of remand. - G. S. KULKARNI JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Jetly, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sham Walve i/by Mr. Rajan Yadav. For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav and Mr. Ashutosh Mishra. P.C. We have heard Mr.Jetly, learned senior counsel for the petitioner along with Mr. Walve and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated 14th July 2023 by which respondent no. 1 has held that the petitioner, who is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 017) and impugned order dated 14.07.2023 being Exhibit A passed by Respondent No. 1; (c) that this Honorable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or a Writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India permanently restraining and prohibiting Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from taking any action in furtherance of, or in pursuance of, or in implementation of, the impugned notice dated 30.12.2020 for the financial year 2014-2015 (Oct 14-Mar 15), 2015- 16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 (upto June 2017) and impugned order dated 14.07.2023 being Exhibit A passed by Respondent No. 1; (d) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Union of India 2015 (37) S.T.R. 6 (Bom.) to contend that although the said decision recognised the levy of service tax on advocate, the same has been stayed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Madhu Sudan Mittal Vs. Union of India 2023 (70) GSTL 124 (Jhar.), to contend that in such decision, the Jharkhand High Court has held that demand notice for payment of service tax on legal services provided by advocate was not sustainable. It is on such contentions, Mr. Jetly submits that the impugned notice dated 30th December 2020 issued to the petitioner as also the consequential order dated 14th July 2023 is rendered bad and illegal. 6. Mr. Mishra, lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
