Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › Bombay Bar Association vs. UOI (Supreme Court)

Bombay Bar Association vs. UOI (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 10, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
Interim stay of the operation and implementation of the judgement of the Bombay High Court upholding the constitutional validity of service-tax on lawyers granted

In P. C. Joshi vs. UOI, a Writ Petition was filed in the Bombay High Court to challenge the levy of service-tax on advocates. It was claimed that an advocate renders services which cannot be said to be commercial or business like. They cannot be equated with the service providers mentioned in the Finance Act 1994. It was also contended that advocacy is not a business but a profession and a noble one. An advocate is a part and parcel of the administration of justice and which is a sovereign or regal function and hence providing for a Service Tax on advocates would mean that their services will no longer be available or accessible to those seeking justice from a Court of law. That would defeat the constitutional guarantee of free, fair and impartial justice. The High Court dismissed the Petition and held that levy of service-tax on lawyers is valid. On appeal to the Supreme Court HELD by an interim order:

Until further orders, there shall be interim stay of the operation and implementation of the impugned final order and judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P.(L) No.1764 of 2011, dated 15.12.2014

Related Judgements

  1. P. C. Joshi vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) 

    A Writ Petition was filed to challenge the levy of service-tax on advocates. It was claimed that an advocate renders services which cannot be said to be commercial or business like. They cannot be equated with the service providers mentioned … P. C. Joshi vs. UOI (Bombay High…
  2. The Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) 

    We make it clear, that on the validity of Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it would be open to the assessee as well as the Department to put forth their respective contentions before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority will decide this issue…
  3. Madras Bar Association vs. UOI (Supreme Court – Constitution Bench) 

    The NTT Act “crosses the boundary” & is unconstitutional. CAs/CSs are specialists on accounts & facts and are not capable of arguing/ deciding ‘Substantial Questions Of Law’

    A perusal of the reported judgements shows that while deciding tax related disputes, provisions of different laws on diverse subjects had to…
  4. DGIT vs. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court) 

    The finding of the High Court that as the satisfaction recorded is justiciable, the documents pertaining to such satisfaction can be allowed to be inspected by the assessee is plainly incorrect. The necessity of recording of reasons, despite the amendment of Rule 112 (2) with effect from 1st October,…
  5. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. CIT (Supreme Court) (Surtax) 

    The law is well settled that a person who claims exemption or concession has to establish that he is entitled to that exemption or concession. A provision providing for an exemption, concession or exception, as the case may be, has to be construed strictly with certain exceptions depending upon…
One comment on “Bombay Bar Association vs. UOI (Supreme Court)”
  1. kishor vig, advocate says:
    August 25, 2015 at 12:36 pm

    interested is recent developments in legal industry

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*