Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

JK Mittal & Co vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 12, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 13, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
GST on legal services: There is no clarity whether all legal services (not restricted to representational services) provided by legal practitioners would be governed by the reverse charge mechanism. Legal practitioners are under genuine doubt whether they require to get themselves registered. The Court directs that no coercive action be taken against any lawyer or law firms for non-compliance with any legal requirement under the CGST Act, the IGST Act or the DGST Act till a clarification is issued by the Central Government and the GNCTD and till further orders in that regard by the Court

(i) It is plain that as of date there is no clarity on whether all legal services (not restricted to representational services) provided by legal practitioners and firms would be governed by the reverse charge mechanism. If in fact all legal services are to be governed by the reverse charge mechanism than there would be no purpose in requiring legal practitioners and law firms to compulsorily get registered under the CGST, IGST and/or DGST Acts. Those seeking voluntary registration would anyway avail of the facility under Section 25 (3) of the CGST Act (and the corresponding provision of the other two statutes). There is therefore prima facie merit in the contention of Mr Mittal that the legal practitioners are under a genuine doubt whether they require to get themselves registered under the three statutes. In the circumstances, the Court directs that no coercive action be taken against any lawyer or law firms for non-compliance with any legal requirement under the CGST Act, the IGST Act or the DGST Act till a clarification is issued by the Central Government and the GNCTD and till further orders in that regard by this Court.

(ii) It is clarified that any lawyer or law firm that has been registered under the CGST Act, or the IGST Act or the DGST Act from 1St July, 2017 onwards will not be denied the benefit of such clarification as and when it is issued.

(iii) It is further clarified that if an appropriate clarification is not able to be issued by the Respondents 1 and 2 by the next date, the Court will proceed to consider passing appropriate interim directions.

One comment on “JK Mittal & Co vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)
  1. do u admire worthless modi government, if u love face the arbitrary action, neither Arun nor modi understand any governance u fellows voted him go power like Trump, he holds similar kind his days are numbered,only corrupt men love another corrupt, be straight to call a spade.

Leave a Reply

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

*

Top