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

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

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
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.

Related Judgements

  1. Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) 

    The Assessee has not derived any interest income. Therefore, reducing such notional income – which has neither been accrued nor received – from the Assessee’s total income is completely alien to the scheme of the Act. Such notional interest could never form a part of the Assessee’s income and…
  2. CIT vs. Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd (Delhi High Court) 

    The question sought to be projected by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,28,19,169/- made by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) by way of disallowance of the expenses debited as cost of Employees Stock Option (‘ESOP’) in profit and loss account?Read more ›
  3. CIT vs. Dharampal Satyapal (Delhi High Court) 

    Plainly, the purpose of clause (a) of Explanation 2 to Section 50B of the Act is to provide a methodology to compute the written down value of the block of assets transferred by an Assessee as a part of the undertaking or division sold by way of a slump…
  4. Sujata Sharma vs. Manu Gupta (Delhi High Court) 

    The impediment which prevented a female member of a HUF from becoming its Karta was that she did not possess the necessary qualification of co-parcenership. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is a socially beneficial legislation; it gives equal rights of inheritance to Hindu males and females. Its…
  5. DIT vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd (Delhi High Court) 

    The reopening was not based on any fresh material. By revisiting the same materials the successor AO now concluded that the payments received by the Assessee pursuant to the O&M Agreements should be treated as FTS. In the circumstances, the view taken by a successor AO on the same…
One comment on “JK Mittal & Co vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)”
  1. dr. guru Balakrishnan says:
    July 13, 2017 at 8:12 pm

    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.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

*