Full Text
W.P. (C) 2891/2016 &C.M. No. 12127/2016 (stay)
DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION &ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Advocates.
Through; Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Ms.Seerat Singh, Advocate forUOI.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for R2, 3.
KAVIN GULATI, SENIOR ADVOCATE Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati, Mr. Nikhil Gupta, Mr.Vipin Upadhaya, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Vijay Joshi, Advocate for UOI.
Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue with
Mr.Abhishek Ghai, Advocate.
AND
SAJAN POOVAYYA Petitioner
Through: Mr.Priyadarshi Banerjee, Advocate.
W.P.(C) Nqs. 2891/2016, 2892/2016 & 4186/2016 ^
2017:DHC:8778-DB
Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Ms.Seerat Singh, Advocate for UOI.
ORDER
1. Pursuant to the order dated 28^''August 2017, Mr. Harpreet Singh, the learned counsel for the Respondents, states, on instructions, that as far as the period from 1'^ April 2016 to 5"" June 2016 is concerned, the Respondents would still insiston collecting service tax from Senior Advocates on forward charge basis.
2. Counsel for the Petitioner points out that this Court, on 1®'April 2016, passed an interim order whereby the impugned notifications were stayed but the Respondents were permitted to continue collecting service taxonreverse charge basis inrespect ofthe fees payable tothe Senior Advocates under the Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20"^ June2012.
3. In that view of the matter, since the above interim order became effective with effect from r'April 2016 itself and is apphcable to all Senior Advocates, the question ofthe Department now raising any demand for the period 1'^ April 2016 to June 2016 does not arise. There is no prejudice caused to the Department for the simple reason that the service tax from 1^^ April 2016 itselfought to have been collected on reverse charge basis. Ifany \N.P.{C) Nos. 2891/2016, 2892/2016 &4186/2016 Page 2of[3] client who has paid the fees of the Senior Advocate, has failed to make payment of the corresponding service tax on reverse charge basis, it would be open to the Department to proceed against such client to recover the service tax in accordance with law.
4. The Court clarifies that the interim order dated 1®^ April 2016 is made absolute and will preclude the Respondents from hereafter raising any demand of service tax on a Senior Advocate in respect of the fees paid to such Senior Advocate for the period 1^' April 2016 to 5'*^ June 2016.
5. The writpetitions andthe applications areaccordingly disposed of.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SEPTEMBER 18, 2017