{"id":11140,"date":"2015-08-13T16:01:17","date_gmt":"2015-08-13T10:31:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=11140"},"modified":"2015-08-13T16:01:55","modified_gmt":"2015-08-13T10:31:55","slug":"bombay-bar-association-vs-uoi-supreme-court-interim-stay-of-the-operation-and-implementation-of-the-judgement-of-the-bombay-high-court-upholding-the-constitutional-validity-of-service-tax-on-lawyers-g","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/bombay-bar-association-vs-uoi-supreme-court-interim-stay-of-the-operation-and-implementation-of-the-judgement-of-the-bombay-high-court-upholding-the-constitutional-validity-of-service-tax-on-lawyers-g\/","title":{"rendered":"Bombay Bar Association vs. UOI (Supreme Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"

In P. C. Joshi vs. UOI<\/a>, 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:<\/p>\n

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<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In P. C. Joshi vs. UOI<\/a>, 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<\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11140","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-supreme-court","judges-amitava-roy-j","judges-arun-mishra-j","judges-chief-justice","section-service-tax-act","counsel-k-k-venugopal","court-supreme-court","catchwords-advocates","catchwords-service-tax","genre-domestic-tax"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11140","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11140"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11140\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11140"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11140"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11140"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}