The Gujarat High court on March 30th, stayed the implementation of imposing service tax on senior advocates and law firms in Percy Carwash Kavina v. Union of India in which the constitutional validity of the same was challenged.
On the very next day, the Calcutta High Court in a petition filed by the Bar Association, Calcutta and Anr against the Union of India, the Single Bench allowed staying for the same by pointing out that the levy of service tax on senior advocates seems to be unreasonably prejudicial to the lawyers. The Court has given due attention to the contention of the petitioners that upon service tax being introduced by the Finance Act, 1994, several exceptions were made, particularly as to who would be liable to pay service tax on account of Senior Advocates and when such tax would be payable. Further, it was also contended that that though the Finance Bill, 2016 has not yet been passed and proposals are contained in such bill to alter the position pertaining to Senior Advocates, the impugned notifications seek to bring in the changes with effect from April 1, 2016, without affording the Parliament an opportunity to discuss the matters covered by the Finance Bill.
On 1st April, the Delhi High Court also granted a stay order on the same Notifications and the Respondents are directed to continue the reverse charge mechanism for payment of service tax for Senior Advocates under Notification No.30/2012-ST.
Read the three orders below.
[googleapps domain=”drive” dir=”file/d/0B3j3oXdY53gVV25xTjFKTEFnc1E/preview” query=”” width=”640″ height=”480″ /]
[googleapps domain=”drive” dir=”file/d/0B3j3oXdY53gVNzVacDZ3aUlDUFE/preview” query=”” width=”640″ height=”480″ /]
[googleapps domain=”drive” dir=”file/d/0B3j3oXdY53gVdUd3Zy1NWWtZRG8/preview” query=”” width=”640″ height=”480″ /]
