Service Tax To Advocates

1
wp.1927.12.doc
sbw
C
ou
WRITPETITIONNO.1927OF2011
P.C.Joshi,
IndianCitizen,ApracticingAdvocate
Havingitsofficeat3,ProspectHouse,
29,RaghunathDadajiStreet,Fort,
Mumbai400001.
...Petitioner
ig
h
Versus
rt
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
ORDINARYORIGINALCIVILJURISDICTION
UnionofIndia
ThroughtheSecretary,
MinistryofFinance,Department
ofRevenue,GovernmentofIndia,
NorthBlock,NewDelhi110001.
2)
TheDirectorofGeneralofServiceTax,
HavinghisofficeatPiramalChambers,
JijibhoyLane,Parel(East),
Mumbai400012.
ba
y
1)
om
3)
TheCentralBoardofExciseandCustoms,
ThroughitsChairman,
DepartmentofRevenue,Ministry
ofFinance,Havingitsofficeat
TheCommissionerofServiceTaxMumbaiI,
Havinghisofficeat5thfloor,Central
ExciseBuilding,MaharshiKarveRoad,
Churchgate,Mumbai400020.
5)
MinistryofLawandJustice,
GovernmentofIndiathroughLaw
Secretaryhavinghisaddressat
4thfloor,ShastriBhavan,
NewDelhi110001.
4)
1/75
http://www.itatonline.org
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
AllIndiaFederationofTaxPractitioners,
anassociationregisteredunderthe
BombayPublicTrustsAct,
1950havingitsofficeat
215,RewaChambers,31,
NewMarineLines,Mumbai400020.
8)
SalesTaxTribunalBarAssociation,
RoomNo.713/B,VikrikarBhavan,
Mazgaon,Mumbai400020.
...Respondents
WITH
WRITPETITION(L)NO.1764OF2011
BombayBarAssociation,
anassociationofpersons,withits
premisesatRoomNo.57,3rdfloor,
HighCourt,Dr.M.KaneMarg,
Mumbai400032.
ba
y
1)
rt
7)
C
ou
TheBarCouncilofMaharashtra&Goa,
HavingtheiraddressatHighCourt
Extension,Fort,Mumbai400032.
ig
h
6)
wp.1927.12.doc
om
2)
MPSRao,
HonorarySecretary,
BombayBarAssociation,withhis
addressatRoomNo.57,3rdfloor,
HighCourt,Dr.M.KaneMarg,
Mumbai4000032.
...Petitioners
Versus
UnionofIndia
2)
TheDirectorofGeneralofServiceTax,
HavinghisofficeatPiramalChambers,
JijibhoyLane,Parel(East),
Mumbai400012.
1)
2/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
wp.1927.12.doc
MinistryofFinance,
DepartmentofRevenue,
GovernmentofIndia,NorthBlock,
NewDelhi110001.
4)
Havingitsofficeat
5)
TheAdocates'AssociationofWesternIndia,
anassociationofpersonshavingits
officeatRoomNo.36,1stfloor,
HighCourt,Mumbai400001,
throughitsPresidentRajivPatil.
6)
TheBombayIncorporatedLawSociety,
anassociationofpersonshavingits
officeat2ndfloor,HighCourt,Annexe
Building,HighCourt,Mumbai400001,
throughitsPresidentDibnsooZaiwala.
ig
h
C
ou
rt
3)
...Respondents
ba
y
WITH
WRITPETITION(L)NO.1808OF2011
AdvocatesAssociationofWesternIndia,
anassociationofPersonsthroughits
SecretaryMr.AnilkumarPatil,
Advocate,Havingitsaddressat
1stfloor,RoomNo.36,HighCourt,
Bombay.
om
1)
ShriSanjeevM.Gorwadkar,
Advocate,Adult,
IndianInhabitant,Havinghis
addressatAAWI,RoomNo.36,
HighCourt,Mumbai.
3)
SadashivDeshmukh,
Advocate,Adult,
IndianInhabitant,havinghis
addressatAAWI,RoomNo.36,
HighCourt,Mumbai.
2)
...Petitioners
3/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
wp.1927.12.doc
UnionofIndia
2)
ThroughitsSecretary,
Havingaddressat
3)
TheDirectorGeneralofServiceTax,
havinghisofficeatPiromalChembers,
Jijibhoylane,Parel,Mumbai400012.
4)
CommissionerServiceTax,
ThroughitsSecretary,
6thfloor,115,M.K.Road,
Churchgate,Mumbai400020.
ba
y
ig
h
1)
C
ou
rt
Versus
...Respondents.
...........
om
Mr. Sushant Murthy i/b. N. S. Thacker for the Petitioner in

W.P.No.1927/2011.
Mr.RajivPatil,SeniorCounsel,withMr.AmolMhatre,forthePetitionerin
W.P(L)No.1808/2011.
Mr.S.S.PakalewithMs.SuchitraKamblefortheRespondentNos.1to4.
Mr.ParagVyasfortheRespondentNo.7.
Mr. Durgaprasad Poojary i/b. PDS Legal for the Respondent No.8 in
W.P.No.1927/2011.
Mr.fortheRespondent.
...........
CORAM:S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
AND
A.A.SAYED,JJ.
4/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
wp.1927.12.doc
JUDGMENT(PERS.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.)
C
ou
rt
RESERVEDON:11thNOVEMBER,2014
PRONOUNCEDON:15thDECEMBER,2014.
Rule. Respondents waives service. By consent, Rule made

returnableforthwith.
BythisWritPetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndia,
ig
h
2]
thePetitioner,apracticingadvocatepraysforthefollowingreliefs:
(a) Declare the impugned provisions in section 65(105)
(zzzzm)of the Finance Act,1994asinsertedbythe Finance

Act,2011asnullandvoidandultravirestheConstitutionof
India and/or section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 and/or be
ba
y
pleased to strike down the said provisions as ultra vires,

arbitraryandviolative ofArticles13,14,19(1)(g),246,265
and268AoftheConstitutionofIndia.
(b)Issueawrit,orderofdirectioninthenatureofcertiorarior
om
any other writ, order or direction of like nature, quashing

section71(A)(5)(d)oftheFinanceAct,2011.
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of
mandamus,oranyotherappropriatewrit,orderordirection,
restraining the Respondents themselves, by their servants,
agentsandsubordinatesfrom,directlyorindirectlygivingeffect
to or acting upon the impugned amendment or collecting
ServiceTaxonthebasisofsection65(105)(zzzzm)readwith
section66assubstitutedbyFinanceAct,2011.
5/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
wp.1927.12.doc
(d)In case the HighCourtis of the viewthat service tax is
rt
leviableonAdvocatesholdthattheprovisionsofRule4Aofthe
C
ou
ServiceTaxRules,1994,provisionsrelatingtolevyofpenalty
under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and prosecution
undersection89oftheFinanceAct,1994totheextenttheyare
madeapplicabletoAdvocatesfornonissueofinvoiceswithin
14daysofthecompletionofserviceareultravirestheFinance
3]
ig
h
Act,1994andArticle19(1)(g)oftheConstitutionofIndia.
Thereliefsareclaimedinthefollowingfactualbackground.
ThePetitionerisanIndiancitizenandapracticingAdvocate.He
claimstobeaffectedbythelevyofServiceTaxonAdvocates.
The Respondent before us is the Union of India and Respondent
ba
y
4]
Nos.2 and 4 are the officers of the Respondent No.1, for the
om
administration of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994as amended.

The3rd RespondentistheCentralBoardofExciseandCustomswhereas
the 5th respondent is the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of

India.RespondentNos.6,7and8aretheBarCouncilofMaharashtraand
Goa,AllIndiaFederationofTaxPractitionersandSalesTaxTribunalBar
Association. They claim to be affected by the imposition and levy of
ServiceTaxonAdvocates.
6/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
ItisthecaseofthePetitionerthatsection65(105)(zzzzm)ofthe
rt
5]
wp.1927.12.doc
FinanceAct,1994asinsertedbytheFinanceAct2009andsubstitutedby
C
ou
FinanceAct2011,proceedstolevyServiceTaxontheAdvocates. The
understanding of the Petitioner and the association of advocates
supportinghimisthattheamendmenttoFinanceActasreferredabove
levies,assessesandrecoversServiceTaxfromAdvocatesandthatwould
ig
h
beviolativeoftheconstitutionalguaranteeofjusticetoall.Itistheirp
submission that justice cannot be secured unless a cause or a legal
proceedingisrepresentedproperlyandeffectivelybeforeaCourt.Itisthe
dutyof the Advocates torepresent the cause of the litigant before the
Courtoflawtothebestoftheirability.ItissubmittedthattheAdvocates
ba
y
are engaged not only for aid and advice but also for appearance and
representationofacaseinCourt.Itisnotpossibleforlitigantstoargue
om
theircasesbeforetheCourtoflawbecausetheymayinvolvecomplicated
factual andlegal issues.In suchcircumstances,when administrationof
justiceisasovereignandregalfunctionoftheStateandAdvocatesare
partofthesame,then,theycannotbesaidtoberenderinganyserviceand
of the nature envisaged by the Service Tax Act/Finance Act. Legal
profession hasnotbeenunderstoodfromtimesimmemorialasaprofit
makingactivityorventure.Itisnotabusinessortrade.Itisasolemn
dutywhichis performed for the litigants including the State who are
7/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
major stakeholders in the judicial system. If, therefore, Advocates are

approached by litigants so as to properly, completely and effectively
C
ou
representthemintheCourtoflaw,then,ataxcannotbeleviedbythe
State on them. That would amount to denying the litigant access to
justice. Theguaranteeofcheap,effectiveandexpeditiousjusticetothe
6]
ig
h
commonmanis,thus,defeated.
It is submitted that the levy of Service Tax imposes a heavy
additionalburdenonlitigantsandalsodisablesthemfromapproaching
theCourt.Itisinthesecircumstances,thatithasbeenchallengedbythe
Advocates.AnAdvocateisanofficeroftheCourt.Itisforthisreasonthat
ba
y
thefeesreceivedbyanAdvocateisregardedasamerehonorariumand
notasamatterofcontractualright.Itisalsoforthisreasonthatithas
om
beenheldbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtthatanAdvocatecannotexercise
anyrightoflienoverhisclients'papersanddocumentswhicharelying
withhim,forthepurposeofcompellingtheclienttopaytheAdvocate's
fees.
7]
The said Amendment violates Article 14 of the Constitution
inasmuch as the said amendment discriminates between representation

madeonbehalfofanindividualandrepresentationmadeonbehalfofa
8/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
businessentity.Thismakesitmanifestlyevidentthatthesaidamendment
ishighlyoppressive,unjustandunreasonableandthesameispalpably
C
ou
arbitrary and is accordingly violative of fundamental rights guaranteed

Article14,19(1)(g)and21oftheConstitution.Thepurposetoexempt
representation and arbitration on behalf of individuals seems to be to
catertotheneedofArticle39AoftheConstitutionofIndia;howeverthe
ig
h
legislature seems to have lost sight of the fact that eventually it is an

individual who is affected economically even if Appearance, and
ArbitrationareonbehalfofCorporationsandPartnershipfirms.Thesaid
AmendmentalsorunscontrarytotheprovisionsoftheFinanceAct,1994
which provide for levy of Service Tax on provision of taxable service.
ba
y
Therecannotbeanylevy,intheabsenceoftherebeingaservice,thelevy
om
failsonthisgroundalone.
8]
Itissubmittedthatinviewoftheabove,itismanifestlyclearthat
theAdvocatesareofficersoftheCourt,andtheyhaveadutyofassisting
the Courts in a just and proper manner in the just and proper
administrationofjustice.Thus,consideringrepresentationprovidedbyan
Advocate as a commercial service is highly unreasonable, absurd and
arbitrary,merelybecausetheAdvocatesreceiveconsiderationfromclients.
ItisthedutyoftheStatenottodenytoanypersonequalitybeforethelaw
9/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
10
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
ortheequalprotectionofthelawswithintheterritoryofIndia.Whilethe
impugnedamendmentautomaticallycreepsininequality,asforinstance
C
ou
in a case, Petitioner may be an individual/State and the respondent a

business entity and the business entity to defend its rights and get
protection of law will be required to pay Service Tax and not the
individual/StateeventhoughthePetitionmaybefrivolousandlitigation
ig
h
may have been forced on the business entity. Similarly, the Advocate
9]
representingthebusinessentitywillhavetobeartheincidenceoftax.
ItissubmittedthatthesaidamendmentalsoviolatesArticle268A
oftheConstitutionandcontravenessection66oftheFinanceAct,1994,
ba
y
which is the charging section. It is further submitted that in order to

attracttheliabilityforpaymentofServiceTax,thereshouldbeaservice
om
provider and a recipient of service. In the case of the Petitioner, the

relationshipbetweentheAdvocateandthelitigantbeforetheCourtisthat
ofarepresentativeofalitigant. Therefore,theamendmentinsertedis
clearlyultravirestheConstitutionofIndia. Theimpugnedamendment
bringswithinthepurviewofServiceTaxappearancesmadebyAdvocates
beforeArbitralTribunalsalso. AlternativeDisputeResolutionisawell
recognized mechanism meant to aid to clear back logs of cases in the
Courts. Hearing and adjudication by Arbitral Tribunal can, therefore,
10/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
11
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
never be service in law.It is an adjudication recognizedbylaw asa
10]
C
ou
decreeinpersonam.
ItissubmittedthattheAdvocatesappearintheCourttorepresent
theirclients,butineffectassisttheCourttodispensejustice.Thefactthat
theassistancerenderedbyAdvocatesistobringinharmonyandpeacein
ig
h
thesocietyandresolvedisputesbetweentheparties,evenbyapplyingthe
fiction,toconsidertherepresentation providedbyAdvocatesasservice
It is also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India
ba
y
11]
wouldbehighlyunreasonableandabsurd.
FederationofTaxPractitionersV/s.UnionofIndia2007(7)SCC527has
heldthatServiceTaxisavalueaddedtaxwhichisleviedonthevalue
om
addition which is made as a result of rendition of a service. It flows

directlyfromthisjudgmentthatmerelytheactofrepresentingthelitigant
beforetheCourtscanneveramounttoaservice,forthesimplereason
that the representation before a Court does not result in any value
addition.Itis,therefore,submittedthatlevyofServiceTaxinthepresent
caseisclearlyillegalandcontrarytothelawaslaiddownbytheHon'ble
SupremeCourtandalsotheprovisionsoftheFinanceAct,1994.Thelevy
ofServiceTaxonArbitrationisunjustifiedasanArbitralTribunalactsina
11/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
12
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
judicialcapacityandbydoingsoisonlyperformingthejudicialfunction
oftheStateandis,therefore,onlyassistingtheStateinperformingits
C
ou
Judicial functions. LevyofServiceTaxonArbitrationgoesagainstthe

purpose of setting up the alternative remedy mechanism through
arbitration as it makes arbitration that much more costlier for the

litigatingpartiesandamountstoalevyofCourtFeeswhichisbeyondthe
The levy of Service Tax on advisory, consultancy and assistance
12]
ig
h
powersoftheCentralGovernmentunderList1.
servicestotheextentitrelatestolevyofServiceTaxonlegaladviceby
Advocates is invalid as a Lawyer is merely advising or opining on the
ba
y
positionoflawandisonlyassistingtheStateinmakingthepublicaware
about what the law on a particular subject is and, therefore, is only
om
renderingaservicetotheState.ThelevyofServiceTaxonlegalservices
goesagainsttheprincipleofArticle39AoftheConstitutionofIndiawhich
amongstotherthingsstatesthattheStatehastosecurethatopportunities
forsecuringjusticearenotdeniedtoanycitizenbyreasonofeconomicor
otherdisabilities.LevyofServiceTaxwouldbeadisabilitywhichwould
restrict the opportunity of securing justice as the same makes legal
servicesthatmuchcostliereconomically. EventheMinistryofLawand
JusticeinRajivGandhiAdhivaktaPrashikshanYojanaoftheGovernment
12/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
13
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
of India have stated that: Constitution of India reflects the quest and
aspirationofthemankindforjustice.Itspreamblespeaksofjusticeinall
C
ou
forms;social,economicandpolitical.Article39Awhichwasinsertedby
wayof42ndAmendmenttotheConstitution,recognizesequaljusticeand
freelegalaid.ItimposesadutyontheStatetosecurethattheoperation
ofthelegalsystempromotesjusticeonabasisofequalopportunityandin
ig
h
particular,providesthattheStateshallprovidefreelegalaidtoensure
that opportunities for securingjustice are not denied toany citizenby
reasonofeconomicorotherdisabilities.Accesstojusticeisrecognizedas
afundamentalright.HencelevyofServiceTaxonLegalServicesviolates
thefundamentalrightsandis,therefore,violativeoftheConstitutionof
ba
y
India.
ItissubmittedthatthelevyofServiceTaxaftertheConstitutional
om
13]
88thAmendmentActwherebysection92CwasinsertedinList1toprovide
for Levy of Taxes on Services by the Central Government can only be

underEntry92CandnotunderEntry97of List1whichisaresidual
entry. Since the Constitutional 88 th Amendment Act has not yet been
broughtintoforcethereisnopowerwiththeCentralGovernmenttolevy
anytaxonServicesbeforesuchNotificationandthereforelevyofService
Taxundersubclause(zzzzm)canonlybeaftersuchNotificationbythe
13/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
14
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
Central Government but presently is beyond the jurisdiction of the
14]
C
ou
ParliamentunderArticle246(1).
Itissubmittedthatwithoutprejudicetotheaboveassumingthat
ServiceTaxisleviableonthelegalprofession,therequirementofissuing
invoiceswithin14daysofcompletionofserviceaspertheServiceTax
ig
h
Rules1994servesnopurposeasunderthepointofTaxationRules2011
servicescoveredunderclause5(105)(zzzzm)aretaxableonlyonreceipt
basis. Hence to the extent of activities covered under section 65(105)

(zzzzm),theprovisionsofRule4AoftheServiceTaxRulestotheextent
theyrequire invoicesto beissuedwithin 14days of completion of the
ba
y
legalassistanceisultravirestheFinanceAct1994.Requirementtoissue
invoice within 14 days of rendering of legal assistance unnecessarily
om
distracts professional time towards avoidable compliance. Also most

counseldonotfollowthesystemofissuinginvoicesandmerelydockets
aremarked.Requirementtoissueinvoicesintheviewofcertaincounsel
may be disrespectful to the profession. The requirement of issuing
invoicesasperRule4AforAdvocates,therequirementofissuingsuch
invoiceswithin14daysofcompletionofservices,theprovisionsofsection
77oftheFinanceAct1994andtheprovisionsofsection89oftheFinance
Act1994asinsertedbytheFinanceAct2011totheextenttheyrequire
14/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
15
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
Advocatestoissueinvoicesatall,toissueinvoiceswithin14daysofthe
completionofassistance,relatingtolevyofpenaltyundersection77of
C
ou
the Finance Act 1994 for not issuing of invoices and prosecution
provisionsundersection89oftheFinanceAct1994totheextentthey
relatetorequirementofissuinginvoicewithin14daysofcompletionof
renderingofserviceareultravirestheFinanceAct1994andArticle19(1)
Itissubmittedthatwithoutprejudiceevenifitisheldthatservice
15]
ig
h
(g)oftheConstitutionofIndia.
taxisleviableonlawyersthe provisionsof Rule 4Aof the ServiceTax

Rules1994requiringinvoicestobeissuedwithin14daysofcompletionof
ba
y
therenderingoflegalassistance,levyofpenaltyundersection77ofthe
Finance Act 1994 and prosecution provisions under section 89 of the
om
FinanceAct1994totheextenttheyrelatetoissueofinvoicewithin14
daysofcompletionoflegalassistanceareultravirestheFinanceAct1994
and Article 19(1)(g) as no practical purpose is served by requiring

Advocatestoissueinvoiceswithin14daysofrenderinglegalassistance
sincesuchactivitiesunderthepointoftaxationrulesaretaxableonlyon
receiptbasis.
16]
In the grounds raised in the Writ Petition, the same pleas are
15/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
16
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
canvassed. Theretheelaborationoftheaboveasmadebythecounsel
17]
C
ou
appearingbeforeus,issetout.
Itisintheaforesaidfactsandcircumstancesthatthereliefsinterms
oftheprayersabove,havebeenprayed. Anaffidavitinreplyhasbeen
filedbytheDeputyCommissionerofServiceTaxandwhichisonbehalfof
ig
h
RespondentNo.4.Inthataffidavit,thestandoftheRespondentNo.4isas
under;
om
ba
y
ThemaingroundofthePetitioneristhatAdvocatesare
officersoftheCourtandnotserviceproviders.Itiscontendedby
thePetitionerthatprovidingassistancetotheCourtcannotbe
regardedas'service'andthereforeservicetaxcannotbeleviedon
lawyers.Itmay bepointed outthat notonlylawyersbutalso
other professionals like chartered accountants, cost and work
accountants and company secretaries also provide
representational services before the statutory authorities like
Tribunalsetc.Theywereearlierexemptedfrompayingservicetax
on representational services vide Notification No.25/2006ST,
dated13.07.2006.ThesaidNotificationhassincebeenrescinded
vide Notification No.32/2011ST, dated 25.04.2011 and now
evensuchprofessionalsarerequiredtopayservicetaxontheir
representationalservices. Lawyers/Advocatesprovideassistance
inadministeringjusticebyputtingforththefactsofthecaseina
truemanner,buttosaythattheydonotrenderanyserviceto
theirclientsisnotcorrect. Theydoinfactprovideservicesto
theirclientsandaredulycompensatedintheformoffeeswhich
arechargedfromtheclients.
I further say that, representational services provided to
individualshavebeenkeptoutoftheservicetaxnetsothatthe
burdenisnotfeltbythecommonman.Onlytherepresentational
servicesprovidedtobusinessentitiesarecoveredbythelevy.Isay
16/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
17
wp.1927.12.doc
ig
h
C
ou
rt
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that

reasonableclassificationisallowedifitisfoundedonintelligible
differentia. It has been held that differentiation is not always
discriminatory.Ifthereisarationalnexusonthebasisofwhich
differentiation has been made with the object sought to be
achievedbyparticularprovision,then,suchdifferentiationisnot
discriminatoryanddoesnotviolatetheprinciplesofArticle14of
theConstitution. Thisprincipleiswellsettled. Inthepresent
case there is intelligible basis for differentiation. Whether the
sameresultorbetterresultcouldhavebeenachievedandbetter
basis of differentiation evolved is within the domain of
legislatures and must be left to the wisdom of the legislature.
Moreover, there is a greater latitude in classification that is
allowedinmattersoftaxation.Itiswellsettledthatinmattersof
taxation, Courts permit greater latitude to pick and choose
objectsandratesforTaxationandParliament/Legislaturehasa
widediscretionwithregardthereto.TheStateisallowedtopick
andchooseobjects,persons,methodsandevenratesfortaxation.
om
ba
y
Hence I state that the Legislature or the Parliament is

competent to identify and reasonably differentiate between
variousservicesandservicerecipientsforthepurposeoftaxation
andthatthereisnogroundtochallengethelevyonthegrounds
ofdiscrimination.Thisismoresoconsideringthepublicinterest
basis for the classification i.e. not to impose an unnecessary
burdenonindividuals.
Further,Isaythatitiswellestablishedthatthelegislature
inordertotaxsome,neednottaxall.Itcanadoptareasonable
classification of persons and things in imposing tax liabilities.
Themerefactthatataxfallsmoreheavilyoncertaingoodsor
persons will not result in its invalidity. The Courts lean more
readilyinfavourofupholdingtheconstitutionalityoftaxinglaws
inviewofthecomplexitiesinvolvedinthesocialandeconomic
lifeofthecommunity.
In light of the aforegoing, I say that the reasonable
classificationfortaxationpurposeiswellwithinpowersofthe
Parliament.Theclassificationwithinabroadergroupintosub
groupsbasedonreasonslikecapacitytopayandcomplywith
17/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
18
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
taxing provisions, and lessening the tax burden on individual

litigantscannotbeheldaslegallydiscriminating.
om
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
Withreferencetoparas4,5and6oftheWritPetition,the
Respondent states that the legislative competence of the
ParliamenttolevyservicetaxunderEntry97hasbeenupheldby
theHon'bleApexCourtinseveraljudgments.InthecaseofAll
India Federation of Tax Practitioners V/s. Union of India
[2007(7)S.T.R.625(S.C.)]ithasbeenheldthatParliamenthas
legislative competence to levy service tax by way of impugned
Finance Acts of 1994 and 1998 under Entry 97 of List I and
accordinglyimpositionofservicetaxonprofessionalsupheldin
thatcase. Theassertionthatthis legislationisanattemptto
collecttaxwithouttheauthorityoflawandis,therefore,violative
of Article 265 of the Constitution, is wrong and misplaced.
ServicetaxisleviedundertheresiduarypowerofParliamentas
Entry92CofList1hasnotcomeintoforce.TheHon'bleSupreme
Courthasemphasizedthatataxcannotbestruckdownonthe
groundoflackoflegislativecompetencebyenquiringwhetherthe
definition accords with the layman's view of service. It is well
settledthatinmattersoftaxationlaws,theCourtpermitsgreater
latitudetopickandchoseobjectsandratesfortaxationandhas
awidediscretionwithregardthereto. Ifurthersaythatthe
righttojusticeisavailabletoall.Theamendmentdoesnotseek
toplaceanyrestrictiononthesame.Further,individualsseeking
the representational services of lawyers/advocates are not
requiredtopayanyservicetaxtothelawyers.
With referencetoparas7and 8 oftheWritPetition,I
reiteratethatthelegislativecompetenceoftheParliamenttolevy
service tax under Entry 97 has been upheld by the Hon'ble
SupremeCourt inanumberofjudgments. Sincethebusiness
entityusestheservicesofadvocatesforrepresentation,servicetax
is leviable. Further, I say that 'value addition' does not
necessarily mean that certain intrinsic changes must occur, in
whatisbeingofferedasgoodsorservices.Inthecaseofservices
provided by the advocates, it is their skill, knowledge and
expertiseinlegalmatterswhichisavailedofbytheclientsfor
monetaryconsiderationonwhichservicetaxhasbeensoughtto
belevied.
18/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
19
wp.1927.12.doc
ig
h
C
ou
rt
Withreferencetoparas9,10and11oftheWritPetition,
theRespondentstatesthatnofundamentalrightofanypersons
hasbeenviolated. Equalitybeforelawandequalprotectionof
lawsandfreedomtopracticeanyprofessionisstillprovided.The
imposition of Service Tax on lawyers does not take away or
abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution and thus, no
violation of Articles 14 and/or 19 has been committed. The
impugned levy is reasonable, fair and legal. I say that the
ParliamentenactedthesaidprovisiontolevyServiceTaxonthe
Advocatesinproperexerciseofitslegislativecompetence.Isay
thattheclaimofPetitionerthatthereisadiscriminationmade
between the Law Firms and an individual providing Legal
Services,isunsustainable. IsaythattheConstitutionofIndia
allowsforreasonableclassificationforthepurposeofLegislation,
asstatedabove.
om
ba
y
With reference to paras 12, 13 and 14 of the Writ

Petition,theRespondentstatesthatthesecaselawsreferredtoby
thePetitionersareonthedutiesofalawyertowardshisclient
andalsotomaintainthedecorumoftheHon'bleCourts. The
said judgments merely speak of the duties of a lawyer to the
Courtsbeforewhomtheyappear.Thepropositionslaiddownin
the said judgments is undisputed, but the same has no
applicationto,orbearingontheissuesathand,namely,levyof
servicetaxonlegalservicesprovidedbyalawyertohisclient.I
saythatitisthelawyer'sskillandexpertisewhichistheservice
he provides to the litigants, which makes a difference to the
representation of his client's case before the Court of law and
assiststheCourtinarrivingattheproperinterpretationoflaw.
Withreferencetoparas15and16oftheWritPetition,the
Respondentstatesthatnorestrictionhasbeenimposedonthe
practice of the profession of law. The Parliament has levied
service tax on representational services provided to business
entitiesaftercarefulconsideration. Representationalservicesto
individualshavebeendeliberatelykeptoutofthetaxnetsothat
afinancialburdenisnotcastuponthem. Forbusinessentities
theamountwillbecenvatableandthusasetoffisavailable.The
saidamendmentdoesnotviolateArticle268AoftheConstitution
19/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
20
wp.1927.12.doc
C
ou
rt
anddoesnotcontravenesection66oftheFinanceAct,1994.No
discrimination has been made. This has been a conscious
attempt to exclude representational services provided to
individuals. Theintentionistocoverthosewherethenewlevy
canbeimposedanditcanbecollectedwithoutmuchhardshipto
taxpayers.
om
ba
y
ig
h
Withreferencetoparas18,19,20and21oftheWrit
Petition,IsaythatanArbitratorisaprivatepersonappointedby
partiestorendertheserviceofadjudicatingtheirdisputes,andis
hencecorrectlyexigibletoservicetax.However,videNotification
No.45/2011ServiceTax,dated12/09/2011,servicesinrespect
ofarbitrationbyanArbitratorTribunalareexemptfromlevyof
service tax (annexed is a copy of notification marked as 'A').
Further, I reiterate that not only lawyers but also other
professionals like chartered accountants, cost and work
accountants and company secretaries provide representational
servicesbeforethestatutoryauthoritieslikeTribunalsetc.They
were earlier exempted from paying service tax on
representationalservicesvidenotificationNo.25/2006ST,dated
13.7.2006 (now rescinded vide notification No.32/2011ST,
dated 25.4.2011). Lawyers/Advocates provide assistance in
administeringjusticebyputtingforththefactsofthecaseina
truemanner;sodootherprofessionalsrepresentingtheirclients
beforetheauthorities.Tosaythattheydonotrenderanyservice
totheclientsisnotcorrect. Theyaredulycompensatedinthe
formoffeewhichischargedfromtheclients.Accountabilityto
courtsfortheiractionsisnodoubtanimportantaspectofthe
profession but it does not affect the service relationship of a
lawyer withhisclientwithrespectoflevyofservicetax. The
natureofservicesrenderedbydifferentserviceproviderscannot
be compared, say with a consulting engineer or a doctor. A
lawyerprovidestheserviceofrepresentinghisclientbeforethe
judicial forum presenting his client's case for which he is
compensatedbytheclientwhohasavailedofhisservices.Even
charteredaccountants/companysecretaries/costaccountantsare
similarly placed. They are also prohibited from entering into
someprofessions/activities.Thatinitselfdoesnotexcludethem
fromthecategoryofserviceprovidersinrespectoftheservices
providedbythem.
20/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
21
wp.1927.12.doc
ig
h
C
ou
rt
With reference to paras 22, 23 and 24 of the Writ

Petition, the Respondent states that 'value addition' does not
necessarilymeanthatcertainintrinsicchangesmust occurin
whatisbeingofferedasgoodsorservices.Inthecaseofservices
providedbytheadvocates,itistheirexpertiseinlegalmatters
which is availed of the clients for monetary consideration on
whichservicetaxhasbeensoughttobelevied. Itissubmitted
thatinlawatransactioncan,dependingonitsnatureattract
twotaxes,andthus,whiletheincomeofalawyerissubjectto
incometax,servicetaxisleviableontheservicesprovidedbythe
lawyertothisclient. Moreover,thenatureofincometaxand
service tax is different, the former being a direct tax and the
latterbeinganindirecttax.Theincidenceintheformerisonthe
professionalorentityrenderingtheservicewhereastheincidence
in latter is on the client. This situation is not peculiar to
advocatesonly. AllserviceprovidersarealsosubjecttoIncome
Tax.Thereistherefore,noviolationofArticle19(1)(g).
om
ba
y
With reference to para 25 of the writ petition, the

Respondentstatesthatnofundamentalright,includingArticle
39A,hasbeenviolated.Equalitybeforelawandequalprotection
oflawsandfreedomtopracticeanyprofessionisstillprovided.
The State has not made any law which has taken away or
abridgedtherightsconferredbytheConstitutionandthus,no
violation of Article 14 or 39A has been committed. The
impugnedlevyisreasonable,fairandlegal.IsaythattheArticle
14ofConstitutionofIndiaforbidsclassLegislationbutitdoes
notforbidreasonableclassificationforthepurposeofLegislation.
Withreferenceto paras27and28oftheWritPetition,
theRespondentstatesthatParliamenthaslegislativecompetence
tolevyservicetaxunderEntry97ofList1.Thesubmissionthat
theConstitutional88thAmendmentActhasnotyetbeenbrought
intoforceareuntenableintheeyesoflaw.Isaythatthispointis
notlongerresintegra.
Withreferencetopara29and31oftheWritPetition,the
respondentstatesthatRule4AofServiceTaxRules1994applies
toalltaxableserviceprovidersandnotmerelylegalservice.Itis
21/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
22
wp.1927.12.doc
C
ou
rt
submittedthatthisruleisinoperationsince10/09/2004andis
suitablyamendedfromtimetotimewithintheservicetaxframe
work.Theinvoiceisthebasisofavailmentofcenvatcreditunder
Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. It enables the service recipient to
obtaincenvatcreditofservicetaxpaid/payableonthetaxable
serviceavailed.Thispreventsthecascadingeffect.Thus,itisone
of the key documents on the basis of which the service tax is
administered. Furtherthereisaneedtoprescribeatimelimit
forcompliancewithanyprovisionregardingissuanceofinvoice.
Any dispensation of the same would affect the efficiency and
effectiveneedofthetaxadministration.
ba
y
ig
h
By imposing aprovisionfor timely issuanceofinvoices,

the right to practice any profession or to carry on any
occupation,tradeorbusinessasprovidedundertheConstitution
hasnotbeenviolated. Itisfurthersubmittedthatprovisionof
penaltyundersection77andprosecutionundersection89ofthe
FinanceAct,arealsonotultraviresoftheFinanceAct1994read
withArticle19(1)(g)oftheconstitution. Furthernotification
25/2011STdated31/03/2011hasdefinedthepointoftaxation
inrespectofcertainservices,includinglegalservices,asthedate
on which payment is received or made as the case may be.
(Annexed is copy of the Notification No.25/2011Service Tax,
dated31/03/2011markedasExhibitB).
om
18]
There is further affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.4 on
13thJanuary,2012.Inpara5and9ofthesamethisiswhatisstated:
5.Isaythatwhileelaboratingtheabovesaidcontentionit
has been stated that advocates are governed by rules and
regulationsformedbythebarcouncil,tosubservethecauseof
justice. An advocates work under severe constraints,
restrictions and public duties, cast by law under peculiar
statutory provisions governing the profession and therefore
they are entitled to remain out of the net of service tax. I
respectfully say and submit that the said contention is also
equallymisconceivedandnottenableintheeyesoflaw.
22/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
23
wp.1927.12.doc
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
rt
Isaythatitistruethatfunctioningofhisprofessionis
controlled,governedandregulatedbytheCentralandState
Government.ItisalsotruethatthebarcouncilofIndiaisthe
monitoring and governing authority for the conduct of the
professionandtheprofessionaladvocatesetc.,aselaborately
setoutinpara7ofhisaffidavit,however,thatitselfisnot
enoughtoclaimanextraordinaryprivilegeofaconstitutional
functionaries.Isayandsubmitthat,firstlynorestrictionshas
been imposed on the practice of the profession of law. The
Parliament has levied service tax on representation services
provided to business entities after careful consideration.
Representationalservicestoindividualshavebeendeliberately
keptoutofthetaxnetsothatafinancialburdenisnotcast
uponthem.Forbusinessentitiestheamountwillbecenvatable
andthusasetoffisavailable.Thesaidamendmentdoesnot
contravene section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. No
discrimination has been made. This has been a conscious
attempt to exclude representational services provided to
individuals.Theintentionistocoverthosewherethenewlevy
canbeimposedanditcanbecollectedwithoutmuchhardship
totaxpayers.
om
9.
Isaythatthisissuehasalreadybeenexaminedbythe
Hon'bleApexCourtinfavourofthisRespondent.Itisfurther
submittedthattheimpugnednotificationdoesnotimposeany
restrictionsonthelegalprofessionnoritaltered,mofidiedor
amendedtheprovisionsoftheAdvocatesAct1961oranyother
relevant statute to their disadvantage. It is well settled
principleoflaw thatin matters of taxationlaws,theCourt
permitsgreaterlatitudetopickandchoseobjectsandratesfor
taxation and has a wide discretion with regard thereto. I
further say that right to justice is available to all. The
amendmentdoesnotseektoplaceanyrestrictiononthesame.
Further, individuals seeking the representational services of
lawyers/advocatesarenotrequiredtopayanyservicetaxto
thelawyers.
10. Ifurthersayandsubmitthatnofundamentalrightof
any person has been violated equality before law and equal
protectionoflawsandfreedomtopracticeanyprofessionis
23/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
24
wp.1927.12.doc
19]
C
ou
rt
provided and available. The imposition of service tax on

lawyersdoesnottakeawayorabridgetherightsconferredby
theConstitutionand,thus,noviolationofArticle14and/or
19hasbeencommitted.Theimpugnedlevyisreasonablefair
andlegal.IsaythattheParliamentenactedthesaidprovision
tolevyservicetaxontheadvocatesinproperexerciseofits
legislative competent and that there is no discrimination as
allegedbyRespondentNo.8.
It is on the above material that we have heard the counsel
ig
h
appearingfortheparties. Mr.Thacker,learnedadvocate,appearingfor
thePetitionersubmittedthatalawyersofficeoranadvocateschamberis
notacommercialorbusinessestablishment.Theadvocatedoesnotcarry
on any business or profit making venture. In the present case, by
ba
y
imposingataxfortheservicesrenderedbytheadvocates/lawyers,itis
ultimatelythelitigantoraclientwhowillsuffer.Hesubmitsthatthough
thecontroversyisnarroweddowntosomeextentstill,whatthePetitioner
om
isaggrievedbyisastepormeasureofrecoveringservicetaxfromthe
advocateandforaperiodpriortotheamendment.
20]
ItisinthatregardMr.ThackerinvitesourattentiontoNotification
No.30/2012dated20th June,2012andsubmitsthatbythisNotification
andwhich is issuedunder exercise of the powersconferred by section
68(2)oftheFinanceAct,1994(Act32of1994)andinsupersessionof
clause(i)ofNotificationoftheGovernmentofIndiaintheMinistryof
24/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
25
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
Finance (Department of Revenue) No.15/2012Service Tax, dated 17 th

March 2012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, PartII,
C
ou
section3subsection(i)and(ii)NotificationoftheGovernmentofIndia,
intheMinistryofFinance(DepartmentofRevenue)No.36/2004Service
Taxdated31stDecember,2004exceptasrespectsthingsdoneoromitted
tobedonebeforesuchsupersession,theCentralGovernmentnotifiedthe
ig
h
taxableservicesandtheextentoftheservicetaxpayablebytheperson
liabletopayservicetaxforthepurposesofthesaidsubsection.Inthat
regard,Mr.Thackerinvitesourattentiontoclause(i)ofthisNotification
andsubmitsthatthetaxableservicesprovidedoragreedtobeprovidedby
anArbitralTribunaloranindividualadvocateorafirmofadvocatesby
ba
y
way of support services to any business entity located in the taxable

territorywouldbetaxable. Now,theservicetaxandofthedescription
om
giveninthetablewillbeliabletotaxinthehandsoftherecipientandto
theextentof100%. Meaningthereby,inrespectofservicesprovidedor
agreedtobeprovidedbyanArbitralTribunal,ServiceTaxtotheextentof
100%bytherecipientoftheserviceandinrespectofservicesprovidedor
agreedtobeprovidedbyindividualadvocateorfirmofadvocatesbyway
of legal services would be liable to Service Tax and the recipient
accordinglywillhavetobearitinitsentirety.
25/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
26
Mr. Thacker, therefore, submits that first of all no Service Tax is
rt
21]
wp.1927.12.doc
liabletobepaidonlegalservicesorservicesrenderedbyanadvocate,
C
ou
individually or collectively. Assuming that Service Tax is leviable and

recoverable,yet,theburdentocollectandpaythesameshouldnotbeon
theserviceproviderandtheamendmentmadebytheaboveNotification
should be given retrospective effect. Mr. Thacker submits that the
ig
h
Petitioner wants to assert that no Service Tax is liable to be levied,

assessedandrecoveredfrom anadvocateorthelegalprofession. Our
attentionisinvitedtosection65(105)(zzzzm)andaspeechgivenbythe
thenFinanceMinisterwhilepresentingtheUnionBudgetof20092010
dated 6th July, 2009. It is submitted by Mr. Thacker that the Minister
ba
y
proceedsonthefootingthatserviceprovidedbycharteredaccountants,
cost accountants and company secretaries as well as engineering and
om
management consultants, and legal consultants, is identical or similar.

Therefore, he proceeds to levy Service Tax on advice, consultancy or
technicalassistanceprovidedinthefieldoflaw. Theclarificationgiven
thatthetaxwouldnotbeapplicableincasetheserviceproviderorthe
servicereceiverisanindividual,isamisnomer.Thatdoesnotremovethe
basicandfundamentalanomalyinequatingtheservicesoflawyers,legal
consultantsandadvocateswiththecostaccountant,charteredaccountant,
companysecretariesandotherconsultants. Theyessentiallyconcentrate
26/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
27
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
on advisory and consultancy services and to corporates or business

concerns or entities. The advocates do not either individually or
C
ou
collectivelycateronlytobusinessentities.Thetermishopelesslyvague.
Even a sole proprietary concern and which is an individual business

activity can be termed as a business entity. Small and petty traders
carrying on business individually or collectively in the name or
ig
h
nomenclatureofafirmarenotcashrichorfinanciallypowerfultobear
theburdenofanyadditionaltaxation.Therefore,theservicesprovidedby
individualadvocatesorfirmsbothtooindividualsasalsobusinessentities
cannotbe brought within the net of service tax.Mr.Thacker therefore
submitsthatequatinglegalprofessionwithcharteredaccountantsandcost
ba
y
accountants, engineering and management consultants, is ultra vires

Article14oftheConstitutionofIndia.Mr.Thackersubmitsthatunequals
om
cannot be treated equally and that also violates the constitutional

mandate. Hefurthersubmitsthattheamendmentstosection65(105)
(zzzzm)wouldrevealthattheemphasisisonserviceprovidedandtoany
personbyabusinessentity,inrelationtoadvice,consultancyorassistance
inanybranchoflaw,inanymanner.Thereaftertoanybusinessentity,by
any person in relation to representational service before any Court,
Tribunalorauthorityandserviceprovidedtoanybusinessentitybyan
ArbitralTribunalinrespectofarbitration.
27/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
28
ItissubmittedthatthebudgetspeechofthethenFinanceMinister
rt
22]
wp.1927.12.doc
while presenting the union budget of 201112 indicates as to how the
C
ou
State wishes to expand the scope of legal services to include services
providedbybusinessentitiestoindividualsaswellasrepresentationaland
arbitrationservicesbyindividualstobusinessentities. Ifinthelightof
thisbudgetspeech,thenotificationof20thJune,2012isperused,then,
ig
h
accordingtoMr.Thackertheconstitutionalguaranteeofequaljusticeand
equalopportunitytosecurejustice,guaranteedbyArticle21and39Aof
theConstitutionofIndiaisdefeated.ThedutyoftheStateistorender
and promote justice. Any hindrance or obstacle in the promotion of
justicewouldbedefeatingtheconstitutionalguarantee.Hesubmitsthat
ba
y
theStatehastoguaranteeequalopportunitysoastoremoveeconomic,
socialandotherdisabilities.Nodisabilityorobstaclecanbeplacedinthe
om
pathofaccesstojustice.Ifanadvocateisameanstosecurejustice,then,
bylimitingtheadvocates'capacitythestateisindirectlyactingcontraryto
the constitutional mandate. An impartial and independent judiciary

equallyrequiresanimpartial,independentandfearlessofficertoassistit.
An advocate being an officer of the Court and the profession being
differentfromacharteredaccountantorcostaccountantthatimposing
ServiceTaxisunconstitutional.Mr.Thackerhasalsorelieduponentry92C
intheunionlist(listI ofscheduleVIIoftheConstitutionofIndia) he
28/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
29
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
submitsthatthisentryinsertedby88 thAmendmenttotheconstitutionhas
notbeenbroughtintoeffect. Thisisaspecificentryandinrelationto
C
ou
Service Tax. Therefore, the levy of Service Tax cannot be said to be

permissibleunderentry97ofthislist.Forthesereasons,hesubmitsthat
thelevyisbadinlaw.
The compilation of the Notifications and relevant statutory
ig
h
23]
provisionshasbeenhandedoverbyMr.Thacker.Thatistakenonrecord.
Mr.Thackerplacedrelianceuponthefollowingjudgments:
1)D.P.ChadhaV/s.TriyugiNarainMishraandothersreportedin
(2001)2SupremeCourtCases221;
ba
y
2)AllIndiaFederationofTaxPractitionersandothersV/s.Unionof
IndiaandOthersreportedin(2007)7SupremeCourtCases527;
3)Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Assn. V/s. Union of India
reportedin2004(167)E.L.T.(S.C.);
om
4)TheBarCouncilofMaharashtraV/s.M.V.DabholkarandOthers
reportedin(1976)2SupremeCourtCases291;
5)StateofMaharashtraV/s.ManubhaiPragajiVashiandothers
reportedin(1995)5SupremeCourtCases730;
6)Manoharan V/s. Sivarajan and others reported in (2014) 4
SupremeCourtCases163;
7)All India Sainik Schools Employees' Association V/s. Defence
MinistercumChairman Board of Governors, Sainik Schools
Society, New Delhi and others reported in 1989 Supp (1)
SupremeCourtCases205;
29/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
30
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
8)UttarPradeshPowerCorporationLimitedV/s.AyodhyaPrasad
Mishraandanotherreportedin(2008)10SupremeCourtCases
139;and
24]
C
ou
9)PremchandSomchandShahandanotherV/s.UnionofIndiaand
anotherreportedin(1991)2SupremeCourtCases48.
Ontheotherhand,Mr.Pakaleappearingonbehalfoftheunionof
ig
h
Indiareliedupontheaffidavitsfiledandachartwhichhasbeenhanded
over. Mr.PakalesubmitsthatacomparisonoftheprovisionsofFinance
Act,2005broughtintoeffectfrom16thJune,2005andFinanceAct,2011
whichhasbeenbroughtintoeffectfrom1stMay,2011wouldindicateas
to how the complaint made by the interested parties that individual
ba
y
advocates rendering service to individuals would suffer immensely is

redressed. The levy of service tax would affect them adversely and
consequentlytheconstitutionalmandateoffreeandfairopportunityto
om
secureandguaranteejustice.Therefore,thathardshiphasbeenremoved.
Mr. Pakale has laid special emphasis on the fact that prior to the
amendments made in 2011 service provider and recipient both were

included. However, after the amendments made in the relevant
Notification having been brought into effect, the provider has been
relievedandtheburdenfallsontherecipient.Insuchcircumstances,the
Notificationshave to be readaccordingly. Mr.Pakale submitsthatby
30/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
31
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
NotificationNo.12/2012dated17th March,2012andparticularlyclause
(6)servicesprovidedtoanypersonotherthan abusinessentitybyan
C
ou
individual as an advocate or a person represented on and as Arbitral
Tribunalscametobeexemptedfromtheservicetax.Thus,the service
providedbyanindividualadvocatetoanypersonotherthanabusiness
entitycametobeexempted.ThetermArbitralTribunalisdefined.By
ig
h
Notification No.15/2012 dated 17th March, 2012 services provided or

agreedtobeprovidedbyArbitralTribunaloranindividualtoanybusiness
entitylocatedinthetaxableterritoryiswhatisdealtwith.Then,thereis
aNotificationissuedon20thJune,2012beingnotificationno.25/2012S.T.
styledasaMegaNotification.Thereunderserviceprovidedbyanyperson
ba
y
otherthanabusinessentityorabusinessentityhavingaturnoverupto
Rs.10lakhs in the precedingfinancial yearcame tobe exempted from
om
paymentofServiceTax.Herealso,boththetermsadvocateandArbitral
Tribunalaredefined.
25]
ByNotificationNo.30/12whichisalsoissuedon20 th June,2012
thepositionisfurtherclarified.
26]
Mr.Pakalesubmitsthatasexplainedintheaffidavitinreplythereis
absolutely no substance in the challenge raised by the Petitioners.

31/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
32
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
Mr. Pakale submits that by the constitutional provision, namely, Article

19(1)(g)thereisarighttopracticeanyprofession,ortocarryonany
C
ou
occupation,tradeorbusiness,however,thisissubjecttothereasonable
restrictionwhichhasbeenprescribedbyArticle19(6). Nothinginsub
clause (g) of clause (1) of Article 19 shall affect the operation of any
existinglawinsofarasitimposesorpreventsmakingofanylawinthe
ig
h
interestofgeneralpublictoimposereasonablerestrictionsontheexercise
of the right conferred by the said subclause and particularly the
restrictionsofthenaturespecifiedtherein.Therefore,itisnotaabsolute
right but subject to reasonable restrictions. The imposition of a tax
includingServiceTaxdoesnotrestrictapersonfromexercisinghisrightto
ba
y
carry on any profession, trade or occupation. In the present case an

advocateisnotpreventedorprohibitedfromcarryingonhisprofessional
om
activitiessimplybecauseheisrequiredtopaytaxes. Theadvocatesare
paying taxes on their income (income tax, paying taxes on their
profession/professional tax). They are also paying tax to statutory

authorities and public bodies such as the Municipalities, Panchayat.
Therefore, different types of taxes and which are levied, assessed and
recovereddoesnotimpairtheexerciseoftherightconferredbyArticle
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. This fundamental right being
subjectedtoareasonablerestrictionbytheconstitutionitself,noneofthe
32/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:52 :::
33
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
Petitionerscancomplain.Thetaxcannotbesaidtobeunconstitutional.
Inthisregard,Mr.Pakalereliesuponaprescriptiontoobtainalicenseor
C
ou
permittocarryonbusiness. Therefore,itisfutiletocomplainthatthe
restrictionswhichareguaranteeingeconomicstabilityforthecountrywill
inanywayhampertheexerciseoftheright.Mr.Pakalepointsoutthata
restriction in public interest cannot be said to be unreasonable merely
ig
h
becauseinagivencaseitoperatesharshlyonapersonorsomepersons.
It is submitted that there is nothing unreasonable, unfair, illegal or
discriminatoryintheimpositionandlevyofservicetax.Thereisapolicy
to tax and in larger public interest that would override the business
interestofanindividual.Mr.Pakalebringstoournoticeseveralaspects
ba
y
andwhichcouldbesaidtobepartandparcelofareasonablerestriction.
Relyingupon ajudgmentofthe Hon'ble SupremeCourtin the caseof
om
M.A.RehmanV/s.StateofAndhraPradeshreportedinAIR1961SC
1471,Mr.Pakalesubmitsthattherestrictiontopaytaxcannotbesaidto
beunreasonable.Itisinthesecircumstancesthatthechallengemustfail.
Mr.PakalealsoreliesuponthejudgmentoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtin
thecaseofM/s.K.M.MohamadAhdulKhaderFirmV/s.StateofTamil
Nadureportedin AIR1985SupremeCourt12 andotherdecisionsto
urgethatataxunlessitisconfiscatoryinnaturecannotbesaidtobea
unreasonablerestrictionuponthefreedomofbusiness.Itcannotbesaid
33/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
34
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
to be unreasonable even if the dealer who is liable to pay service tax
27]
C
ou
cannotpassontheburdentothepurchaser.
Solongasthetaxisimposedwithlegalauthorityitdoesnotviolate
themandateofArticle286oftheConstitutionofIndia. Thatcannotbe
heldtobeaunreasonablerestrictiononthefundamentalrightguaranteed
ig
h
byArticle19(1)(g)oftheConstitutionofIndia.Thetaxcannotbesaidto
beexcessive.
Mr. Pakale also submits that retrospective operation of a taxing
28]
statuteisnotnecessarilyunreasonableandthePetitionershavefailedto
ba
y
pointoutanyparticularcircumstancesinwhichthesamecouldbesaidto
beso.HencethechallengebasedonArticle14oftheConstitutionofIndia
om
mustfail.
29]
AccordingtoMr.Pakaleequallybaselessisthechallengebasedon
theEntry92Coflist IofScheduleVIIoftheConstitutionofIndia.The
argumentthatConstitution(88th Amendment)Acthasnotbeenbrought
intoforceoreffect,willnothelpthePetitionersbyanymeans.Thereisno
barfortaxationandMr.PakaleheavilyreliesuponArticle245,Article246
andArticle248oftheConstitution ofIndiainthatregard. Byheavily
34/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
35
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
relyinguponArticle248,Mr.PakalesubmitsthatbysubArticle(1)ofthat
Article Parliamenthasexclusivepowertomakeanylawwithrespectto
C
ou
any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List and
furthersuchpowershallincludethepowerofmakinganylawimposinga
taxnotmentionedineitherofthoseLists. Therefore,thisArticleread
withentry97ofListIofscheduleVIIoftheConstitutionofIndiagrants
ig
h
andconfersaresiduarypoweroflegislationintheParliamentandwhichit
hasexercisedinthepresentcase.Insuchcircumstances,merelybecause
30]
entry92Cisnotbroughtintoeffectwillnotmakeanydifference.
Mr. Pakale also submits that Petitioner cannot insist on the
ba
y
NotificationNo.30/2012operatingretrospectively.Now,theburdenisnot
onthePetitioners.Theburdenisontherecipient.Iftheburdenisonthe
recipientandnorecipienthascomeforwardtocomplainaboutlackof
om
opportunitytosecurejusticeortheimpositionofServiceTaxdefeatingthe
guaranteeofequaljustice,then,allthemore,thisWritPetitionmustfail.
31]
Mr.PakalehasreliedupontheprovisionsintheFinanceActinsofar
asthelevyofservicetaxonadvocatesandlegalpractitioners. Healso
relies upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
CourtofIndiainthecaseof FederationofHotelandRestaurantV/s.
35/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
36
wp.1927.12.doc
For properly appreciating the rival contentions, we would firstly
C
ou
32]
rt
UnionofIndiaandothersreportedinAIR1990SC1637.
refertotheprovisionintheFinanceActenablingthelevyofServiceTax
onadvocatesandtheamendmentsmadethereto.
Admittedly,thereisnoseparatelegislationstyledasServiceTaxAct.
ig
h
33]
Section64to98insertedinChapterVandVAoftheFinanceAct,1994
provide for Service Tax. Section 64 subsection (1) indicates that the
Chapter applies to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and
Kashmir. TheChaptershallcomeintoforceonsuchdateastheCentral
ba
y
Governmentmayappoint.Further,ithasbeenclarifiedthattheChapter
shallapplytotaxableservicesprovidedonorafterthecommencementof
thisChapter.Section65containsthedefinitions.Thesectionopenswith
om
thewords,inthisChapter,unlessthecontextotherwiserequiresandby
section65(105)thetermtaxableservicesisdefinedtomeananyservice
providedortobeprovided,andweareconcernedinthiscasewithsub
clause(zzzzm)whichreadsasunder:
(zzzzm)(i)toanyperson,byabusinessentity,inrelation
toadvice,consultancyorassistanceinanybranchoflaw,
inanymanner;
(ii)toanybusinessentity,byanyperson,inrelationto
representational services before any court, tribunal or
36/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
37
wp.1927.12.doc
34]
C
ou
rt
authority;
(iii) to any business entity, by an arbitral tribunal, in
respectofarbitration.
Explanation: For the purposes of this item, the
expressionsarbitrationandarbitraltribunalshallhave
the meanings respectively assigned to them in the
ArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996(26of1996).
Thus, the taxable service means any service provided or to be
ig
h
provided to any person, by a business entity, in relation to advice,

consultancyorassistanceinanybranchoflaw,inanymanner.Theother
partofthisdefinitionisinrelationtorepresentationalservicesbeforeany
Court, Tribunal or Authority and to any business entity by an Arbitral

Tribunalinrespectofarbitration.Theexplanationdefinestheexpressions
ba
y
'arbitration'and'arbitralTribunal'.
35]
Thiswastheprovisionassubstitutedbysection74oftheFinance
om
Act2011(8of2011)witheffectfrom1stMay,2011.
36]
Then,ourattentionhasbeeninvitedtotheNotificationsinthefield.
Inthatregard,Mr.Thackerhastracedthedefinitionoftheabovetermand
asappearingintheChapterVofFinanceAct1994asamendedbyFinance
Act,2010(ActNo.64of2010)dated8 th May,2010witheffectfrom1 st
July,2010,thattimethedefinitionreadasunder:
37/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
38
wp.1927.12.doc
ig
h
C
ou
rt
(105)taxableservicemeansanyserviceprovidedortobe
provided;
(a)anyperson,byastockbrokerinconnectionwiththesale
or purchase of securities listed on a recognised stock
exchange;
(b)and(c)xxx.
(zzzzm)toabusinessentity,byanyotherbusinessentity,in
relationtoadvice,consultancyorassistanceinanybranchof
law,inanymanner;
PROVIDEDthatanyserviceprovidedbywayofappearance
beforeanycourt,tribunalorauthorityshallnotamountto
taxableservice.
Explanation: For the purposes of this subclause, business
entity includes an association of persons, body of
individuals, company or firm, but does not include an
individual.
37]Mr.Thackerhadplacedrelianceuponthisamendmenttourgethat
ba
y
there was no intention to proceed against the Advocates because the

taxable services provided or to be provided to a business entity by a
business entity in relation to advice, consultancy or assistance in any
om
branchoflawalonewerewithinthepurviewofthelaw. Aexplanation
appeared at the relevant time below the subclause(zzzzm) and the
expression business entity was defined to include an association of

persons,bodyofindividuals,companyorfirm,butnotanindividual.The
argument,therefore,isthattaxableserviceasdefinedisaserviceprovided
or tobe providedtoa business entity,by any other business entity,in
relationtoadvice,consultancyorassistanceinanybranchoflaw,andin
anymanner.However,anyserviceprovidedbywayofappearingbefore
38/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
39
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
anyCourt,TribunalorAuthoritywasexcludedanditshallnotamountto
taxable service. Thus, Mr. Thacker would urge that the Central
C
ou
Government intended to levy Service Tax on advice, consultancy or

technicalassistanceprovidedinthefieldoflawandthetaxwouldnotbe
leviableincasetheserviceproviderortheservicereceiverisanindividual.
Mr. Thacker, therefore, submits that the advocates covered by the
ig
h
AdvocatesAct,1961werenotincludedinthisdefinition. Theintention
wasnottoburdenthosewhoarerenderingservicesofacting,pleading
andappearingintheCourtsforlitigantsandlegalservicesrenderedbya
business entity to another business entity and in relation to advice,
consultancyorassistanceinanybranchoflaw,alonewerebroughtwithin
ba
y
thepurviewofthisdefinitionandtheServiceTax.
However, Mr. Thacker has fairly brought to our notice the
om
38]
amendmentmadetotheFinanceActbyvirtueofaNotificationandwhich
alsohasbeenrelieduponbyMr.Pakale.ThatNotificationNo.12/2012
S.T.dated17th March,2012setsoutthelistofservicesexemptedfrom
ServiceTaxafterFinanceActNo.12of2012,whichistermedasanegative
list.
39]
In this Notification it has been provided that the Central

39/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
40
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
Governmentissatisfiedthatitisnecessaryinthepublicinteresttoexempt
the taxable servicesfrom the whole of the service tax leviable thereon
C
ou
under section 66B of the Finance Act and at clause (6) the services
providedtoanypersonotherthanabusinessentitybyanindividualasan
advocateorapersonrepresentedonandasaArbitralTribunalisinserted.
Therefore, such taxable services were exempted from the whole of the
ig
h
servicetax.Mr.Thackersubmitsthatforthefirsttimethetermadvocate
isappearingintheFinanceAct,1994andthatwouldmeanthatservices
providedtoanypersonotherthanabusinessentitybyanindividualasan
Advocate or a person represented on and as Arbitral Tribunals were
exempted. It has been also set out in this Notification by inserting
ba
y
definitionsthatanadvocatehasthesamemeaningassignedtoitunder
clause(a)ofsubsection(1)ofsection2oftheAdvocatesAct,1961(25of
om
1961).
40]
Mr. Thacker, therefore, submits that this Notification and other
Notification superseding all prior Notifications being Notification

No.15/2012S.T.dated 17th March,2012woulddenotethatatonetime
therewasadecisiontoexempttheservicesrenderedbyindividualasan
advocate to any person other than a business entity or a person
representedonandasanArbitralTribunalbutbythefurtherNotification
40/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
41
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
of the same date services provided or to be provided by an Arbitral

Tribunaloranindividualadvocatetoanybusinessentitylocatedinthe
C
ou
taxableterritoryisbroughtwithinthepurviewofservicetax.Thiswould
indicateastohowtheadvocateshavebeentreatedunfairlyandunequally.
Theyhavebeenbroughtwithinthenetalthoughexemptedearlierfrom
ServiceTax.Broadly,theargumentisthatadvocaterenderserviceswhich
ig
h
cannotbesaidtobecommercialorbusinesslike.Theycannotbeequated
withtheserviceprovidersmentionedintheFinanceAct1994.Advocacyis
notabusinessbutaprofessionandanoble one. Anadvocateisapart

andparceloftheadministrationofjusticeand whichisasovereignor
regalfunctionandhenceprovidingforaServiceTaxonadvocateswould
ba
y
meanthattheirserviceswillnolongerbeavailableoraccessibletothose
seekingjusticefromaCourtoflaw.Thatwoulddefeattheconstitutional
om
guaranteeoffree,fairandimpartialjustice,ishissubmission.
41]
We cannot agree with him and for more than one reason. The
legislaturebyinsertingsuchprovisionhasneitherinterferedwiththerole
andfunctionofanadvocatenorhasitmadeanyinroadandinterference
intheconstitutionalguaranteeofjusticetoall.Theservicesprovidedtoa
individualclientbyaindividualadvocatecontinuestobeexemptedfrom
thepurviewoftheFinanceActandconsequentlyServiceTaxbutwhenan
41/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
42
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
individualadvocateprovidesserviceoragreestoprovideservicestoany
businessentitylocatedinthetaxableterritory,then,heisincludedand
C
ou
liabletopayServiceTax.Thatisbecausethelegislaturewasawarethat
poorandneedysectionofthepopulationrequiresadvice,consultancyor
assistance in any branch of law, if he requires legal advice, aid and
assistance,then,thatshouldbeavailabletohimattimesimmediatelyand
ig
h
cheaply. He should not be burdened with a tax to be levied on the

advocateforprovidingsuchservices.Therefore,ifthelegislaturethought
itfittoexcludeaindividualadvocateandrenderingtheaboveservicesto
individuals,solongasheisrenderingservicestothosewhocannotafford
to pay heavy professional fees and charges being individuals that the
ba
y
legislaturedeemeditfitnottoincludeinthetaxbrackettheindividual
advocates. Theseadvocatesmayberenderingservicestotheneedyand
om
speciallywomenandchildrenatVillage,Taluka,District,Townandeven
atcitylevels. Itis,therefore,apparenttousthatthelegislaturewhile
making the above distinction did not in any manner overlook the
constitutional guarantee and as envisaged in the preamble to the
ConstitutionofIndia.,soalsoArticle21and39Athereof,thelegislature
madeadistinctionandwhichappearstoustobecompletelyreasonable.
Theclassificationbetweenthosewhocanaffordprofessionallegalservices
andarereadytopaythefeesorchargesdemandedwithoutseekingany
42/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
43
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
reductionorconcessionandthosewhocannotpaylegalfeesbutcanat
best bear meagre expenses has been made. This classification has a
C
ou
reasonablenexuswiththeobjectsoughttobeachieved.Itcannotbesaid
that while introducing this provision, the legislature did not take into
accounttheeconomicrealities.Theeconomicrealitiesarethateven,legal
services are rendered in an organized manner. There is not only an
ig
h
individualoperatingandfunctioningasanadvocatebutthereisafirmor
associationofadvocatesoperatingonbusinessprinciplesandfunctional
notonlyinmetrotownsandcitiesbuteveninthoseplaceswhichcanbe
termedasdistricttownandcities.Whenadvocateisgroupororganize
themselves by making huge investments in acquiring immovable
ba
y
propertiesforprofessionalwork,heavyoverheads,intheformofclerical
andsupportstaff,withfacilitiesofcabinsorrooms,then,legalservicesare
om
renderedto organizedgroupsorbusinessentitiespredominantly. They

may be of the nature of advice, consultancy or further acting and
appearanceinCourtsandTribunals.Thesepersonscanverywellpaythe
feesandchargeswithoutanydemurorcomplaint.Itiswhenservicesare
rendered to such entities and persons by not individual advocates but
thoseworkingonbusinesslines,then,iftheyarebroughtwithinthenetof
taxable services and service tax is levied on them, they can hardly
complain.Theirrighttocarryonlegalprofessionandaspertheirchoice
43/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
44
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
canhardlybesaidtobetakenawaymuchlessadverselyaffected. Mr.
Pakale is right in placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble
C
ou
SupremeCourtinwhichitisemphasizedthatintaxinglegislationsand
statutesthereisagreaterlatitudeanddiscretionintheGovernment.Ina
decisionreportedinAIR2012SC2351StateofM.P.V/s.RakeshKohli
and another, the principles which have to be borne in mind while
ig
h
consideringanddealingwithconstitutionalvalidityofaTaxingStatute
enactedbyParliamentorStateLegislaturearesetoutandreiterated.The
Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaheldasunder:
om
ba
y
13. ThestatuteenactedbyParliamentoraStateLegislature
cannotbedeclaredunconstitutionallightly.TheCourtmustbe
abletoholdbeyondanyiotaofdoubtthattheviolationofthe
constitutional provisions was so glaring that the legislative
provision under challenge cannot stand. Sans flagrant
violation of the constitutional provisions, the law made by
ParliamentoraStateLegislatureisnotdeclaredbad.
14. This Court has repeatedly stated that legislative
enactmentcanbestruckdownbyCourtonlyontwogrounds,
namely (i), that the appropriate Legislature does not have
competencytomakethelawand(ii),thatitdoesnottake
awayorabridgeanyofthefundamentalrightsenumeratedin
Part III of the Constitution or any other constitutional
provisions.
25. In Hamdard Dawakhana, the Court also followed the
statement of law in Mahant Moti Das and the two earlier
decisions, namely, Charanjit Lal Chowdhury V/s. Union of
IndiaandothersandTheStateofBombayandanotherV/s.F.
N.Balsaraandreiteratedtheprinciplethatpresumptionwas
alwaysinfavourofconstitutionalityofanenactment.
44/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
45
wp.1927.12.doc
C
ou
rt
27. Awellknownprinciplethatinthefieldoftaxation,the
Legislatureenjoysagreaterlatitudeforclassification,hasbeen
noted by this Court in long line of cases. Some of these
decisionsare:M/s.SteelworthLimitedV/s.StateofAssam;
GopalNarainV/s.StateofUttarPradeshandanother;Ganga
Sugar Corporation Limited V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others,R.K.GargV/s.UnionofIndiaandothersandStateof
W.B.andanotherV/s.E.I.T.A.IndiaLimitedandothers.
ig
h
28. InR.K.Garg,theConstitutionBenchofthisCourtstated
thatlawsrelatingtoeconomicactivitiesshouldbeviewedwith
greaterlatitudethanlawstouchingcivilrightssuchasfreedom
ofspeech,religion,etc.
om
ba
y
29. Whiledealingwithconstitutionalvalidityofataxation
lawenactedbyParliamentorStateLegislature,theCourtmust
haveregardtothefollowingprinciples:(i),thereisalways
presumptioninfavourofconstitutionalityofalawmadeby
Parliamentor aStateLegislature(ii),noenactmentcanbe
struckdownbyjustsayingthatitisarbitraryorunreasonable
orirrationalbutsomeconstitutionalinfirmityhastobefound
(iii), the Court is not concerned with the wisdom or
unwisdom,thejusticeorinjusticeofthelawastheParliament
andStateLegislaturesaresupposedtobealivetotheneedsof
thepeoplewhomtheyrepresentandtheyarethebestjudgeof
the community by whose suffrage they come into existence
(iv), hardship is not relevant in pronouncing on the
constitutionalvalidityofafiscalstatuteoreconomiclawand
(v), in the field of taxation, the Legislature enjoys greater
latitudeforclassification.
42]
Wedonotfindthattheseprincipleshavebeeninanywaydeviated
or departed from by the Hon'ble Supreme Court later on. They fully
governtheinquiryandcontroversybeforeus. Ifthesaidprinciplesare
appliedtothefactsandcircumstancesofthepresentcase,then,wedonot
45/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
46
wp.1927.12.doc
43]
C
ou
equalityenshrinedbyArticle14oftheConstitutionofIndia.
rt
seeanysubstanceinthechallengebasedonviolationofthedoctrineof
We have already reproduced the relevant paragraphs from two
affidavits which have been filed in reply to this Writ Petition. They
containthejustificationandparticularlyinpara17,19,20and21soalso
ig
h
para24ofthefirstaffidavitfiledon30 thSeptember,2011.Thereiteration
ofthisstandisinthefurtheraffidavitfiledon13 th January,2012inthe
WritPetitionNo.1927of2011 inparas5and9. Thatjustificationand

reasons for the levy do not indicate that unequals have been treated
equally.WedonotfindanybasisorfoundationinthecomplaintbyMr.
ba
y
Thackerinasmuchasimpositionofsuchlevydoesnotburdenthelitigant
ortheconsumerofjustice.Wedonotfindanysubstanceinthecomplaint
om
that the profession of advocates and legal profession itself has been
treatedonparwithcommercialortradingactivitiesordealingsingoods
andotherservices.Merelybecauseoftheroleoftheadvocate,itdoesnot
meanthathispositionasanofficeroftheCourtandpartandparcelof
administrationofjusticeisinanywayunderminedleavealoneinterfered
with.TheAdvocatesandlegalpractitionersareknowntopayprofessional
taxes and taxes on their income. They are also brought within the
purviewofservicetaxbecausetheiractivitiesinlegalfieldareexpanding
46/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
47
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
intheageofglobalization,liberalizationandprivatization.Theyarenot
onlycateringtoindividualsbutbusinessentities. Ifitisfoundthatthe
C
ou
advocatesarecateringtoaffluentandrichclassoflitigantsandrecipients
of legal services, then, the tax on the services rendered to them is
definitely within the permissive sphere of legislation. That cannot be
44]
ig
h
faulted.
Inthisregard,itwouldbeproperandappropriatetorefertosome
oftheobservationsoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia. In AllIndia
FederationofTaxPractitionersV/s.UnionofIndiareportedin(2007)
7SCCwhiledealingwiththelegislativecompetenceofParliamenttolevy
ba
y
servicetax,theHon'bleSupremeCourtmadedetailedreferencetothetest
om
ofsaleability/marketabilityandheldasunder:
24. TheimportanceoftheabovejudgmentofthisCourtistwofold.
Firstly, applying the principle of equivalence, there is no difference
betweenproductionormanufactureofsaleablegoodsandproduction
ofmarketable/saleableservicesintheformofanactivityundertaken
bytheserviceproviderforconsideration,whichcorrespondinglystands
consumedbytheservicereceiver. Itisthisprincipleofequivalence
whichisinbuiltintotheconceptofservicetax,whichhasreceived
legal support in the form of the Finance Act, 1994. To give an
illustration,anEventManager(professional)undertakesanactivity,
namely,oforganisingshows. HebelongstotheprofessionofEvent
Management.Aslongasheisinthebusinessorcallingorprofession
ofanEventManager,heisliabletopaythetaxonprofession,calling
ortradeunderEntry60ofListII.However,thattaxunderEntry60
of List II will not cover his activity of organising shows for
considerationwhichprovideentertainmenttotheconnoisseurs. For
eachshowheplansandcreateseventsbasedonhisskill,experience
47/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
48
wp.1927.12.doc
C
ou
rt
and training. In each show he undertakes an activity which is

commercial and which he places before his audience for its
consumption. The tax on service is levied for each show. This
situationisverysimilartoasituationwheregoodsaremanufactured
orproducedwiththeintentionofbeingclearedforhomeconsumption
under the Central Excise Act, 1944. This is how the principle of
equivalence equates consumption of goods with consumption of
services as both satisfy the human needs. In the case of internet
service provider, service tax is leviable for online information and
databaseprovidedbywebsites. Butnoservicetaxisleviableone
commerceasthereisnodatabaseaccess.
ig
h
25.
Onthebasisoftheabovediscussion,itisclearthatservicetax
isVATwhichinturnisbothageneraltaxaswellasdestinationbased
consumptiontaxleviableonservicesprovidedwithinthecountry.
om
ba
y
26.
TheFinanceActispassedeveryyeartofixtherateoftax.This
istheprimaryobjectforenactingtheFinanceAct. Butitdoesnot
meanthatanewdistinctchargecannotbeintroducedbytheFinance
Act. Forexample,whatisnotincomeundertheIncomeTaxAct,
1961 can be made income by the Finance Act. This is, however,
subject to the Finance Act complying with the constitutional
limitations. Additional tax revenue can be collected either by
increasingtherateorbylevyofafreshcharge.Allleviesthroughthe
mediumoftheFinanceActmayeitherenhancetherateorlevyafresh
charge.TheFinanceActcanalsomakeanextensivemodificationin
anAct.
27.
In Madurai District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Third ITO
[(1975)2SCC454:1975SCC(Tax)374:AIR1975SC2016]this
CourtheldthattheIncomeTaxAct,1961andtheannualFinanceActs
areenactedbyParliamentinexerciseofthepowerconferredbyArticle
246(1)readwithEntry82ofListI.Itwasfurtherheldthatthoughit
was unconventional for Parliament to amend the taxing statute by
incorporatingtheamendingprovisioninanActofadifferentpithand
substance,suchcoursewouldnotbeunconstitutional.Itwasheldthat
though the Income Tax Act, 1961 was a permanent Act while the
FinanceActsarepassedeveryyeartoprescribetheratesatwhichthe
taxhasbeenchargedundertheIncomeTaxAct,1961stillitwouldnot
meanthatanewanddistinctchargecannotbeintroducedunderthe
FinanceAct.Therefore,whatisnotincomeundertheIncomeTaxAct,
1961canbemadeincomebyaFinanceAct.Similarlyanexemption
grantedbytheIncomeTaxActcanbewithdrawnbytheFinanceAct.
Similarly,subjecttoconstitutionallimitations,additionaltaxrevenue
48/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
49
wp.1927.12.doc
C
ou
rt
couldbecollectedbyenhancementoftherateoftaxorbythelevyofa
freshchargevidetheFinanceAct.Parliament,throughthemediumof
theFinanceAct,maydowhattheamendmenttotheIncomeTaxAct,
1961byaseparateamendmentAct,cando.Itwasfurtherheldthat,
theFinanceActs,thoughannualActs,arenotnecessarilytemporary
Actsastheymaycontainprovisionsofageneralcharacterwhichare
ofpermanentoperation.Thus,Parliamentiscompetenttointroducea
chargingprovisioninaFinanceAct.Inthesaidjudgment,ithadbeen
furtherheldthatevenanadditionalcharge(surcharge)canbelevied
bytheFinanceActforthepurposesoftheUnion.
om
ba
y
ig
h
28.
TheaforesaidjudgmentwasinthecontextoftheIncomeTax
Act,1961.However,theratioofthatjudgmentwouldapplyequally
totheFinanceActsenactedannuallyforenhancementoftherateof
excisedutybylevyofafreshchargeunderthatAct.Applyingthetest
laiddownintheaforestatedjudgmentofthisCourt,weholdthata
newchargebywayofservicetaxortaxonservicecametobelevied
statutorily by the said Finance Act, 1994, which has subsequently
attained constitutional status byvirtue ofthe Constitution (Eighty
eighthAmendment)Act,2003.
..
33.
Applying the above tests laid down in the aforestated
judgmentstothefactsofthepresentcase,wefindthatEntry60ofList
II, mentions taxes on professions, trades, calling and employments.
Entry60isataxingentry. Itisnotageneralentry. Therefore,we
hold that tax on professions, etc. has to be read as a levy on
professions,trades,callingsetc.,assuch. Therefore,Entry60which
referstoprofessionscannotbeextendedtoincludeservices. Thisis
whatiscalledasanAspectTheory.Iftheargumentoftheappellants
isaccepted,thentherewouldbenodifferencebetweeninterpretation
ofageneralentryandinterpretationofataxingentryinListIand
List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Therefore,
professionswillnotincludeservicesunderEntry60. Fortheabove
reasons, we hold that Parliament had absolute jurisdiction and
legislativecompetencetolevytaxonservices. Whileinterpretingthe
legislative heads under List II, we have to go by schematic
interpretation of the three Lists in the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitutionandnotbydictionarymeaningofthewordsprofession
or professional as was sought to be argued on behalf of the
appellants, otherwise the distinction between general entries and
taxing entries under the three Lists would stand obliterated. The
wordsinrelationtoandthewordswithrespecttoarenodoubt
wordsofwideamplitudebutonehastokeepinmindthecontextin
whichtheyareused.
49/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
50
wp.1927.12.doc
om
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
rt
34.
Asstatedabove,Entry60,ListIIreferstotaxesonprofessions,
etc.Itisthetaxontheindividualperson/firmorcompany.Itisthe
tax on the status. A chartered accountant or a cost accountant
obtainsalicenceoraprivilegefromthecompetentbodytopractise.
OnthatprivilegeassuchtheStateiscompetenttolevyataxunder
Entry60.However,asstatedabove,Entry60isnotageneralentry.
Itcannotbereadtoincludeeveryactivityundertakenbyachartered
accountant/costaccountant/architectforconsideration.Servicetaxis
a tax on each activity undertaken by a chartered accountant/cost
accountant or an architect. The cost accountant/chartered
accountant/architectchargeshisclientforadviceorforauditingof
accounts.Similarly,acostaccountantchargeshisclientforadviceas
wellasdoingtheworkofcosting. Foreachtransactionorcontract,
the chartered accountant/cost accountant renders profession based
services. Theactivityundertakenbythecharteredaccountantorthe
costaccountantoranarchitecthastwoaspects. Fromthepointof
view of the chartered accountant/cost accountant it is an activity
undertakenbyhimbasedonhisperformanceandskill.Butfromthe
pointofviewofhisclient,thecharteredaccountant/costaccountantis
hisserviceprovider.Itisataxonservices.Theactivityundertaken
bythecharteredaccountantorcostaccountantissimilartosaleable
ormarketablecommoditiesproducedbytheassesseeandclearedby
theassesseeforhomeconsumptionundertheCentralExciseAct.
35.
Foreachcontract,taxisleviedundertheFinanceAct,1994
and1998.TaxcannotbeleviedunderthatActwithoutservicebeing
providedwhereasaprofessionaltaxunderEntry60isataxonhis
status.Itisthetaxonthestatusofacostaccountantorachartered
accountant.Aslongasaperson/firmremainsintheprofession,he/it
has to pay professional tax. That tax has nothing to do with the
commercialactivitieswhichheundertakesforhisclient. Evenifthe
chartered accountant has no work throughout the accounting year,
stillhehastopayprofessionaltax. He hastopay the tax tillhe
remainsintheprofession. ThisistheambitandscopeofEntry60,
ListIIwhichisataxingentry.Therefore,Entry60contemplatestax
onprofessions,assuchEntry60,ListIIreferstotaxonemployments.
..
37.
In Western India Theaters Ltd. v. Cantonment Board [AIR
1959SC582]theappellantwasapubliclimitedcompany.Itwasa
lesseeoftwocinemahouses. Itwasanexhibitorofcinematograph
films.AnoticewasissuedtotheappellantbytheCantonmentBoard
under section 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 imposing tax on
entertainments. The said levy was challenged on the ground that
50/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
51
wp.1927.12.doc
C
ou
rt
underSection100oftheGovernmentofIndiaAct,1935(TheGOI
Act, 1935 read with Entry 50 in Schedule VII, the Provincial
Legislaturehadpowertomakelawwithrespecttotaxesonluxuries,
including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and
gambling.ItwasurgedonbehalfoftheappellantthatEntry50was
not applicable since Entry 50 contemplated enactment of a law
imposing taxes on persons who receive or enjoy the
entertainments/amusements and, therefore, the said entry did not
authorise imposition of tax on assessee/persons who provide
entertainmentsoramusements.
om
ba
y
ig
h
38.
According to the appellant, Western India theaters were
entertainmentproviders;thattheywerenotentertainmentreceivers;
that they simply carried on their profession, trade or calling and,
therefore, Entry 50 was not applicable. It was further urged that
entertainmentprovidersfellunderEntry46,whichentryissimilarto
Entry60ofListIIinthepresentcaseandwhichreferredtotaxeson
professions, trades, callings and employments. This argument
advancedonbehalfoftheappellantwasrejectedbythisCourt.Itwas
held that Entry 50 contemplated a tax on entertainment and
amusementasobjectsonwhichataxistobeimposedand,therefore,
itwasnotpossibletodifferentiatebetweentheentertainmentprovider
andtheentertainmentreceiver. Itwasheldthatentertainmentwas
trade or calling of Western India Theaters and, therefore, the tax
imposedon entertainmentunder theCantonmentsActcamewithin
Entry50oftheProvincialList.Theimportanceofthisjudgmentlies
inthefactthatthisjudgmentmakesadistinctionbetweentaximposed
fortheprivilegeofcarryingonanytradeorcallingononehandanda
taxoneveryshow,thatistosayoneveryincidenceoftheexerciseof
theparticulartradeorcalling.Itwasheldthatiftherewasnoshow,
therewasnotax.
39.
Itwasfurtherobservedthatalawyerhastopaytaxtotake
outalicenceirrespectiveofwhetherheactuallypractisesornot.That
tax is a tax for the privilege of having the right to exercise the
professionifandwhenthepersontakingoutthelicencechoosestodo
so.Itwasheldthattheimpugnedtaxonentertainmentleviedbythe
CantonmentBoardwasataxontheactofentertainmentresultingin
a show and, therefore, the impugned law imposing tax on
entertainmentfellunderEntry50oftheProvincialListinScheduleVII
totheGOIAct,1935andnotunderEntry46(similartoEntry60of
ListII).Therefore,itwasheldthatBombayLegislaturehadpowerto
enactthelawimposingtaxonentertainmentwhichhadnothingtodo
with the law imposing tax on the privilege of carrying on any
profession,tradeorcallingunderEntry46(similartoEntry60ofList
51/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
52
wp.1927.12.doc
C
ou
rt
Ii in the present case). Therefore, this Court has clarified the

dichotomybetweentaxonprivilegeofcarryingonanytradeorcalling
on one hand and the tax on the activity which an entertainer
undertakes on each occasion. The tax on privilege to practise the
profession,therefore,fallsunderEntry60,ListII.Itisquitedifferent
fromtaxonservices.Keepinginmindtheaforestateddichotomy,itis
clear that tax on service does not fall under Entry 60, List II.
Therefore, Parliament has absolute jurisdiction and legislative
competencetoenactthelawimposingtaxonservicesunderEntry97,
ListIoftheSeventhScheduletotheConstitution.
Thus, what holds good for chartered accountants and architects
ig
h
45]
mustequallyapplytootherprofessionalssuchasadvocates,andwhotoo
arewellconsciousoftheirstatus. Themannerinwhichtheservicesof
lawyers and advocates are rendered has been a subject matter of a

decision in the case of disciplinary action initiated by Bar Council of
ba
y
Maharashtraagainstaprofessional. Inthatcontext,thedecisionofthe
Hon'bleSupremeCourtinthecaseof TheBarCouncilofMaharashtra
V/s.M.V.Dabholkar&Ors.reportedin1976(2)SCC291theHon'ble
om
SupremeCourtheldasunder:
18. Howcanadisciplinaryauthority,awareofitsaccountability
to the Indian Bar, functioning as the stern monitor holding the
punitive mace to preserve professional purity and promote public
commitmentandappreciativeofwhatisdisgraceful,dishonourable
and unbecoming, judged by the standards of conduct set for this
noblecallinganddeviationsdamagingtoitspublicimage,findits
waytoholdsuchhorrendousmisbehaviourassnatching,catching,
fighting and undercutting asnot outragingthecanons of conduct
withoutexposingitselftothechargeofderelictionofpublicdutyon
thetrisectionofRule36andblindtothe'lawforlawyers'?
19.
It has been universally understood, wherever there is an

52/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
53
wp.1927.12.doc
ig
h
C
ou
rt
organised Bar assisting in administering justice, thatan attorney,

solicitor, barrister or advocate will be suspended or disbarred for
solicitinglegalbusiness. Andthe'snatching'speciesofsolicitation
are more revolting than 'ambulance chasing', advertising and the
like. Ifthe learned profession isnota moneymaking tradeor a
scrambleforporteragebutabranchoftheadministrationofjustice,
the view of the appellate disciplinary tribunal is indefensible and
deleterious. We,asalegalfraternity,mustandshallliveuptothe
secondandlivedownthefirst,byobservanceofhighstandardsand
dedicationtothedynamicruleoflawinadevelopingcountry.
.
24.Wewishtoputbeyondcavilthenewcalltothelawyerinthe
economicorder. Inthedaysahead,legalaidtothepoorandthe
weak,publicinterestlitigationandotherruleoflawresponsibilities
will demand a whole new range of responses from the Bar or
organisedsocialgroupswithlawyermembers. Indeed,thehopeof
democracyisthedynamismofthenewfrontiersmenofthelawin
thisdevelopingareaandwhatwehaveobservedagainstsolicitation
andallegedprofitmakingvicesaredistantfromsuchfreeserviceto
thecommunity in the juralsector as partoftheprofession's tryst
withthePeopleofIndia.
Wedonotthinkthattheseparagraphswhichwereheavilyreliedby
ba
y
46]
Mr. Thacker indicate that all professionals are alike. Rather the
conclusionsintheseparagraphsofthejudgmentoftheHon'bleSupreme
om
Courtwouldindicatethatthewarninggivenhashadlittleimpact. The
professioncontinuestobecarriedoninthemannercommenteduponby
theHon'bleSupremeCourtdespiteitunderlyingtheroleandmonopoly
statusoftheprofessional.Itwouldnotbeoutofplacetoobservethatthe
professionisnoblebuttheprofessionalisnotnecessarilyso.Similarly,the
Hon'bleSupremeCourthasalreadybeencriticalofthemannerinwhich
legaleducationisbeingimpartedandadministered. Standardsoflegal
53/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
54
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
educationhavenotbeenuptothemark. Theprivatelawcollegesand
which are mushrooming do not necessarily churn out a noble
C
ou
professional. They may conduct and carry a course of study after

completionofwhichtheyconferadegreebutthathardlyguaranteesthat
therecipientthereoffunctionsandworksefficientlyforthesocietyasa
whole.Thus,fallingstandardsinthesocietyandtheurgetomakequick
ig
h
and fast money catches up. In present day litigation one would find
partiesreadytogoatanylengthandforafavourableorder.Allofthem
donotnecessarilyseekjustice.Theyareonlyworriedandbotheredabout
a cause which they propound and espouse. So long as that cause,
whateverbeitsmerits,succeeds,theyarehappy.Inthatprocess,ifjustice
ba
y
isacasualtytheywouldhardlycomplain. Inseveralinstanceswefind
thatspeculativelitigationisinstitutedandpursuedwithfullvigourandall
om
might. Parties do not wish to give up although warned of the

consequencesofinstitutionandprosecutionofsuchalitigation. Ifthey
havebroughtaboutasituationwherejusticeisaccessibleonlytothose
with heavy purses or to wealthy or rich and hardly available and
affordable for those below the poverty line and downtrodden, then,
personsclaimingtobeprofessionalsandadvisingthemcanhardlybesaid
tobeaggrieved.
54/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
55
TheHon'bleSupremeCourthastimeandagainexpresseditspain
rt
47]
wp.1927.12.doc
andanguishthatdoorsoftheCourtarenotopentothosewhoknockat
C
ou
themthemost.InadecisionreportedinAIR1986SC1370(LICofIndia
V/s.EscortsLtd.)TheHon'bleSupremeCourtlamentedasunder:
Problemsofhighfinanceandbroadfiscalpolicywhichtrulyarenot
om
ba
y
ig
h
andcannotbetheprovinceofthecourtfortheeverysimplereason
thatwe lack the necessary expertise and, which, in any case, are
none of our business are sought to betransformed into questions
involvingbroadlegalprinciplesinordertomakethemtheconcernof
theCourt. Similarlywhatmaybe calledthe'political'processof
corporatedemocracyaresoughttobesubjectedtoinvestigationbyus
byinvokingtheprincipleoftheRuleoflaw,withemphasisonthe
ruleagainstarbitraryStateaction. Anexposeofthefactsofthe
presentcasewillrevealhowmuchlegalingenuitymayachieveby
way of persuading courts, ingenuously, to treat the variegated
problemsoftheworldoffinance,aslitigablepublicrightquestions.
Courtsofjusticearewellturnedtodistresssignalsagainstarbitrary
action.Socorporategiantsdonothesitatetorushtouswithcriesfor
justice. Thecourtroombecomestheirbattlegroundandcorporate
battlesarefoughtundertheattractivebannersofjustice,fairplay
andthepublicinterest.Wedonotdenytherightofcorporategiants
toseekouraidaswellasanyLilliputianfarmlabourerorpavement
dwellerthoughwecertainlywouldprefertodevotemoreofourtime
andattentiontothelatter.Werecognisethatoutofthedustofthe
battlesofgiantsoccasionallyemergesomenewprinciples,worththe
while.Thatishowthelawhasbeenprogressinguntilrecently.But
notsonow. Publicinterestlitigationandpublicassistedlitigation
are today taking over many unexplored fields and the dumb are
findingtheirvoice.
2.
Inthecasebeforeus,asiftobefitthemightofthefinancial
giants involved, innumerable documents were filed in the High
Court,atrulymountainousrecordwasbuiltuprunningtoseveral
thousandpagesandmorehavebeenaddedinthisCourt. Indeed,
andtherewasnowayout,wealsohadtheadvantageoflisteningto
learned and long drawnout, intelligent and often ingenious
arguments, advanced and dutifully heard by us. In the name of
justice,wepaidduehomagetothecausesofthehighandmightyby
devotingprecioustimetothem,reduced,aswewere,attimestothe
55/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
56
wp.1927.12.doc
ig
h
C
ou
rt
position ofhelplessspectators. Suchisthe natureofour judicial

processthatwedothiswiththeknowledgethatmoreworthycauses
oflessermenwhohavebeenlongwaitinginthequeuehavebeen
blockedtherebyandthequeuehasconsequentlylengthened.Perhaps
the time is ripe for imposing a timelimit on the length of
submissionsandpagelimitonthelengthofjudgments.Thetimeis
probablyripeforinsistenceonbriefwrittensubmissionsbackedby
shortandtimeboundoralsubmissions.Thetimeiscertainlyripefor
briefandmodestargumentsandconciseandchastejudgments. In
thisverycaseweheardargumentsfor28daysandourjudgment
runsto181pagesandbothcouldhavebeenmuchshortened. We
hopethatwearenothopinginvainthattheviciouscirclewillsoon
breakandthatthiswillbethelastofsuchmammothcases.Weare
doingourbesttodisentanglethesystemfromasituationintowhich
ithasbeenforcedovertheyearsbytheexistingprocedures.Thereis
nowapublicrealisationofthegrowingweightofthejudicialburden.
The cooperation of the bar too is forthcoming though in slow
measure.Drasticsolutionsarenecessary.Wewillfindthemandwe
do hope to achieve results sooner than expected. So much for
sanctimonioussermonisingandnowbacktoourcase.
Apartfromthis,wefindthatpostglobalization,liberalizationand
ba
y
48]
privatization, the legal sector has been involved in several issues

particularlytoadvicetheforeigninstitutionalinvestorsandmultinational
om
corporationskeenoninvestingininfrastructureandothersectorsinIndia.
If they are keen on doing business in India and equally the Indian
Corporate sector experiencing new challenges including expansion of

existingcapacitiesthatthereisenormousscopeforadvocates,lawfirms
and organized law groups. The horizon is ever expanding. In such
circumstances,wefindthatlawsareundergoingachange.Thatchangeis
visibleifoneperusestheprovisionsandamendmentstocorporatelaws.
56/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
57
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
Similarly,theenactmentssuchasSecuritiesandExchangeBoardofIndia
Act, 1992, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act and
C
ou
CompetitionActetc.,resultinfurtheropportunitiestotheadvocatesof
providingvariedservicestobusinessentities. Thus,corporatelawand
corporate lawyers witnessing radical changes and reforms that the
GovernmentortheMinistryofFinancethoughtitfittolevytaxonthese
ig
h
servicesrenderedbyadvocatesbutwithoutdisturbingtheiressentialand
coreprofessionalduty.Therefore,theservicetaxnethasbeenexpanded
49]
andtoincludelegalservicesprovidedtobusinessentities.
There are varied services provided ranging from advice,
ba
y
consultationtoappearancebeforespecialisedTribunals,traditionalCourts
ofJusticeandForeignInstitutionalArbitration. MergersandAcquisition
ofCompaniesbycorporateGiants,takeoverofManagementorhavinga
om
authoritativevoiceinCorporateManagementandpolicybysubscribingor
purchasing a percentage of shares, restructuring or reorganising of
companies, amalgamation of business or manufacturing activities etc.

takesplaceonlywithhighpriced,qualityandallroundlegalparticipation.
Ifadvocacyismeanttocoverandreachingout,tocatertoandserveallof
them, then, the traditional position and status of an Advocate has
undergoneadrasticchange. Now,advocacyisnolongertakingupand
57/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
58
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
presentingorarguinganycausebeforeaCourtofjustice.Itismuchmore
thanthat. Itisactivelyparticipatinginandinvolvingoneselfinmarket
C
ou
strategies,aligningoneselfexclusivelywithlargebusinessgroupsandalso
servingtheirinterests.Hence,wehavelabelssuchascorporateLawand
corporateLawyers.Today,likeanyotherserviceproviderAdvocatesare
pushingthemselvesbyrigorousmarketingandadvertisement,branding
ig
h
themselvesasspecialistsinCorporateLaw,Intellectualandotherproperty
rights,divorcelawandnotMatrimonialandFamilyLawsetc.Iftheyare
part of and have entered the market, exhibiting all trends prevailing
therein,then,itissurprisingthattheyareagitated,workedupatbeing
termed service providers and taxed as such. They have qualified
ba
y
themselvesforbeingbracketedwithotherservicesnotedbytheHon'ble
SupremeCourt. Nonegrudgestheirachievements,successinproviding
om
diverseservicesandsometimesunderoneroofbutwhatsurprisesusis
their reaction and response at being termed as additional revenue
generatingsourcebytheState.TheStatelooksattheorganisedlegalset
up alone thiswayandatthe same time excludesindividual Advocates
renderinglegalaid,adviceandassistancetothepoor,impoverishedand
needy.ThisdistinctionorsegregationofservicesmadebytheParliament
doesnotfallfouloftheconstitutionalguaranteeofequality. Wehadto
sayandobserveallthisbecauseMr.Thackervehementlycontendedthat
58/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
59
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
Advocatescannotbecomparedwithtradersandbusinessmennortheir
services can be equated with those rendered by commercial
C
ou
establishments,transporters,propertyagentsetc. Theargumentisthat
AdvocateisaofficeroftheCourtandpartandparcelofadministrationof
justice.Wedonotfeelthatthisaspecthasbeenignoredorbrushedaside
bytheParliament.Ratherbyarationalandintelligibledifferentiationthe
ig
h
Parliamenthasproceededtolevyandimposeservicetaxonlegalservices
orservicesinthefieldoflawrenderedtobusinessentitiesbyindividual
AdvocatesorafirmofAdvocates.Thedifferentiationasmaintainedand
made takes note of the commercialisation of the practice of law. The
servicerenderedtoaindividuallitigantisnotoftheabovenatureand,
ba
y
therefore,heisrightlyleftout.
50)
Theclassificationbetweenserviceprovidedtobusinessentitiesand
om
individuals,therefore,cannotbesaidtobeillusory.Theclassificationhas
adefinitenexusandwiththeobjectsoughttobeachieved. Ifthatisto
exploreandexpandthesourcesofrevenueandbywideningthetaxnet,
then, it is achieved by bringing within the fold the aforementioned
services. Thereis,therefore,noviolationoftheconstitutionalmandate.
The classification cannot be termed as arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair,
unreasonableandunjust.
59/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
60
The decisions cited by Mr. Thacker on this point can be easily
rt
51]
wp.1927.12.doc
distinguishedandonfacts.Beforewetakenoteofthem,wewouldrefer
C
ou
to the settled and established legal principles, which are laid down in
someoftheJudgmentsoftheHon'bleSupremeCourt.TheseJudgments
summarisetheprinciplesrelieduponbyShri.Pakale.InM.A.Rahman
andOrs.vs.StateofA.P.andOrs.reportedinAIR1961SC1471,the
ig
h
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that reasonable restriction on the right

guaranteedbyArticle19(1)(g)canbeimposed. ThefirstJudgmentin
Rehman'scase(supra)isbytheConstitutionBench. Equallyinanother
ConstitutionBenchJudgmentinthecaseofC.KrishnaMoorthyv.State
ofOrissareportedinAIR1964SC1581,theHon'bleSupremeCourtheld
ba
y
thattherestrictiondoesnotceasetobereasonablemerelybecausethe
legislativepowertotaxhasbeenexercisedretrospectively.Inthatregard,
om
theHon'bleSupremeCourtheldasunder:
11. Mr.Sastrialsoarguedthattheretrospectiveoperationofthe
impugnedsectionshouldbestruckdownasunconstitutional,because
itimposesanunreasonablerestrictiononthepetitioners'fundamental
right under Article 19(1)(g). It is true that in considering the
questionastowhetherlegislativepowertopassanActretrospectively
hasbeenreasonablyexercisedornot,itisrelevanttoenquirehowthe
retrospectiveoperationoperates.Butitwouldbedifficulttoacceptthe
argument that because the retrospective operation may operate
harshly in some cases, therefore, the legislation itself is invalid.
Besidesinthepresentcase,theretrospectiveoperationdoesnotspread
overaverylongperiodeither. Incidentally,itisnotclearfromthe
record that the petitioners did not recover sales tax from their
customerswhentheysoldthegoldornamentstothem.Thecounter
affidavitfiledbytherespondentStateallegesthatevenwheresalestax
60/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
61
wp.1927.12.doc
52]
ig
h
C
ou
rt
hasnotbeenchargedseparatelythepricechargedincludedsalestax
because it was the usual practice of every registered dealer doing
similar business to collect salestax either by showing it as such
separatelyandtherebyclaimingdeductionofthesalestaxfromthe
grossturnovertoarriveatthetaxableturnovershownseparatelyor
byincludingitinthepriceandtherebycollectingitasapartofthe
pricecharged.Inanyevent,wedonotthinkthatinthecircumstances
ofthiscaseitwouldbepossibletoholdthatbymakingtheprovision
of Section 2 of the impugned Act retrospective the legislature has
imposed a restriction on the petitioners' fundamental right under
Article19(1)(g)whichisnotreasonableandisnotintheinterestof
thegeneralpublic.
InthecaseofM.A.Rahman(supra),ThethreeJudgeBenchofthe
Hon'bleSupremeCourtexaminedthechallengetoimpositionofincreased
taxbyAndhraPradeshMotorVehicle(taxationofpassengersandgoods)
AmendmentandValidationAct(34of1961).Innegativingachallenge
ba
y
raisedtothisincreasedtaxonthegroundthatitviolatesthemandateof
Articles14and19(1)(g)oftheConstitutionofIndia,theSupremeCourt
om
heldasunder:
(7) The reasonableness of this provision as to cancellation of

registrationcertificatehastobejudgedinthebackgroundofwhatwe
havealreadysaidaboutthepurposeofthelevyanditsliabilityon
theseller. Itistruethatthereareotherprovisionsinthelawfor
realisation of public dues from those who default in making
payments;butgenerallyspeakingcancellationofregistrationincases
liketheseisonemoremethodofcompellingpaymentoftaxwhichis
duetotheState.Collectionofrevenueisnecessaryinorderthatthe
administrationoftheStatemaygoonsmoothlyintheinterestofthe
generalpublic. TheStatehasthereforearmeditselfwithonemore
coercivemethodinordertorealisethetaxinsuchcases. Itistrue
thatcancellationofregistrationmayresultinadealerbeingunable
tocarryonthebusiness,butthesameresultmayevenfollowfrom
theapplicationofothercoerciveprocessesforrealisationofduesfrom
atrader,forhisassetsmaybesoldofftopaythearrearsoftaxand
61/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
62
wp.1927.12.doc
om
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
rt
hemaythereafterbenotinapositiontocarryonthebusinessatall.
Thereforetheprovisionforcancellationofregistrationforfailureto
pay the tax or for fraudulently evading the payment of it is an
additional coercive process which is expected to be immediately
effective and enables the State to realise its revenues which are
necessaryforcarryingontheadministrationintheinterestofthe
generalpublic.Thefactthatinsomecasesrestrictionsmayresultin
theextinctionofthebusinessofadealerwouldnotbyitselfmakethe
provision as to cancellation of registration an unreasonable
restrictiononthefundamentalrightguaranteedbyArticle19(1)(g).
WemayinthisconnectionrefertoNarendraKumarv.UnionofIndia
(1960)2SCR375:(AIR1960SC430)whereitwasheldthat:
the word restriction in Arts. 19(5) and 19(6) of the
Constitution includes cases of 'prohibition' also; that
wherearestrictionreachesthestageoftotalrestraintof
rightsspecialcarehastobetakenbytheCourttoseethat
thetestof reasonableness issatisfied byconsidering the
questioninthebackgroundofthefactsandcircumstances
underwhichtheorderwasmade,takingintoaccountthe
natureoftheevilthatwassoughttoberemediedbysuch
law,theratiooftheharmcausedtoindividualcitizensby
the proposed remedy, the beneficial effect reasonably
expectedtoresulttothegeneralpublic,andwhetherthe
restraintcausedbythelawwasmorethanwasnecessary
intheinterestofthegeneralpublic.
Applying these tests we are of opinion that the cancellation of
registrationwillbejustifiedeventhoughitresultsintheextinctionof
business as such cancellation is in respect of a tax meantfor the
generalrevenuesoftheStatetocarryontheadministrationinthe
interestofthegeneralpublic.
53]
Incidentally, we may observe that no material has been placed
beforeusbythePetitionerswhichwouldindicatethatforabriefperiod
fromthetimetheimpactoflevyofservicetaxfallonthemanduntilthe
issuanceofthenotificationnumber30of2012dated20 thJune,2012the
Advocates suffered in any manner and particularly pointed out in
C.KrishnaMoorthy'scase(supra).
62/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
63
Lastly,referencecanusefullybemadetoanotherJudgmentofthe
rt
54]
wp.1927.12.doc
Hon'bleSupremeCourtinthecaseoftheMalvaBusServicesPvt.Ltd.vs.
C
ou
StateofPunjabandOrs.AIR1983SC634.ThereaswelltheHon'ble
SupremeCourtheldthatthemerefactthatataxfallsmoreheavilyon
certain goods may not result in its invalidity. In that regard and by
holdingthatsuchastipulationwouldnotmakethelevyconfiscatoryin
ig
h
character,theHon'bleSupremeCourtheldasunder:
om
ba
y
21. Thenextsubmissionurgedonbehalfofthepetitionersisbased
onArticle14oftheConstitution. Itiscontendedbythepetitioners
thattheActbylevyingRs.35,000/astheannualtaxonamotor
vehicleusedasastagecarriagebutonlyRs.1,500/asperyearona
motorvehicleusedasagoodscarriersuffersfromtheviceofhostile
discriminationandis,therefore,liabletobestruckdown.Thereisno
dispute that even a fiscal legislation is subject to Art. 14 of the
Constitution.Butitiswellsettledthatalegislatureinordertotax
someneednottaxall. Itcanadoptareasonableclassificationof
persons and things in imposing tax liabilities. A law of taxation
cannotbetermedasbeingdiscriminatorybecausedifferentratesof
taxation areprescribed in respect ofdifferentitems, provided it is
possibletoholdthatthesaiditemsbelongtodistinctandseparate
groupsandthatthereisareasonablenexusbetweentheclassification
andtheobjecttobeachievedbytheimpositionofdifferentratesof
taxation. The mere fact that a tax falls more heavily on certain
goodsorpersonsmaynotresultinitsinvalidity.Asobservedbythis
CourtinKhandigeShamBhatv.theAgriculturalIncomeTaxOfficer
(1963)3SCR809:(AIR1963)SC591)inrespectoftaxationlaws,
the power of legislature to classify goods, things or persons are
necessarilywideandflexiblesoastoenableittoadjustitssystemof
taxationinallproperandreasonableways. Thecourtsleanmore
readilyinfavourofupholdingtheconstitutionalityofataxinglawin
viewofthecomplexitiesinvolvedinthesocialandeconomiclifeofthe
community.Itisoneofthedutiesofamodernlegislaturetoutilise
themeasuresoftaxationintroducedbyitforthepurposeofachieving
maximum social good and one has to trust the wisdom of the
legislature in this regard. Unless the fiscal law in question is
manifestly discriminatory the court should refrain from striking it
63/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
64
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
downonthegroundofdiscrimination.Thesearesomeofthebroad
principleslaiddownbythisCourtinseveralofitsdecisionsanditis
unnecessarytoburdenthisjudgmentwithcitations.
ba
y
ig
h
C
ou
22. ........Theconsiderationssimilartothosewhichweighedwith
thisCourtinupholdingtheMustardOilPriceControlOrder,1977in
PargIceandOilMillsv.UnionofIndia(1978)3SCR293:(AIR
1978SC1296)oughttobeappliedinthiscasealso.Thoughpatent
injusticetotheoperatorsofstagecarriagesinfixinglowerreturnon
the tickets issued to passengers should not be encouraged, a
reasonablereturnoninvestmentorareasonablerateofprofitscan
notbethesinequanonofthevalidityoftheorderoftheGovernment
fixingthemaximumfareswhichtheoperatorsmaycollectfromtheir
passengers. Itcannotalsobesaidthatmerelybecauseabusiness
becomesuneconomicalasaconsequenceofanewlevy,thenewlevy
would amount to an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental
righttocarryonthesaidbusiness.Itis,however,opentotheState
Governmenttomakeanymodificationsinthefaresifitfeelsthat
thereisaneedtodoso. Buttheimpugnedlevycannotbestruck
downonthegroundthattheoperationofstagecarriageshasbecome
uneconomicalaftertheintroductionoftheimpugnedlevy.Moreover
thematerialplacedbythepetitionersisnotalsosufficienttodecide
whetherthebusinesshasreallybecomeuneconomicalornot.Wedo
not,therefore,findanymeritinthisgroundalso.
55]
Applyingtheseprinciplestothefactsandcircumstancesbeforeus,
om
wedonotfindthatlevyofservicetaxonalimitedcategoryandclassof
professionals, namely Advocates, the burden of which does not fall on
thembutonthereceiveroftheservice,canbesaidtobeviolativeofthe
guaranteeorrightunderArticle19(1)(g)oftheConstitutionofIndia.
56]
Inthefirstdecision,whichwascitedbeforeusbyMr.Thacker,[All
India Sainik Schools Employees' Association V/s. Defence Minister

cumChairmanBoardofGovernors,SainikSchoolsSociety,NewDelhi
64/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
65
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
andothers](supra)theHon'bleSupremeCourtwasdealingwiththeWrit
PetitionseekingawritofmandamustotheUnionofIndiaasalsoSainik
C
ou
School Society to implement the recommendations of the Fourth Pay

CommissionintheSainikSchoolsandtoextendallthebenefitsalready
giventoemployeesoftheKendriyaVidyalayasbywayofimplementing
recommendationsofacertaincommission.Thisequivalenceintheservice
ig
h
conditionsincludingemolumentswasclaimedatparwiththeemployees
andstaffofKendriyaVidyalayas.Itisinthecontextofdealingwithsucha
case that the Hon'ble Supreme Court extended certain benefits to the
Sainik School Staff. This judgment does not decide or lay down any
ba
y
principle.
57]
InthecaseofUttarPradeshPowerCorporationLtd.V/s.Ayodhya
Prasad Mishra and another reported in (2008) 10 Supreme Court
om
Cases139 theHon'bleSupremeCourtwasconsideringaquestionasto
whether there ought to be parity for all employees in selection to the
promotional posts and nongiving of such parity would violate the

doctrineofequalityenshrinedinArticle14and16oftheConstitution.
TheexecutiveengineersplacedincategoryIandcategoryIIareunequals
andthatiswhytheclassificationasmadewasheldtobevalidandnot
violative of Article 14or 16 ofthe Constitution ofIndia. The priority
65/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
66
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
given to executive engineers placed in category I over and above the

executive engineers found in categoryII for promotional post of
C
ou
SuperintendentengineerwasupheldbytheHighCourtandthatdecision
cametobeconfirmedbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia.Wedonot
findthattheprincipleoflawlaiddowntherein,aboutwhichtherecanbe
no dispute, is of absolute application. That principle will have to be
ig
h
applied to the facts and circumstances in each case. The status and
positionoftherespectivepersons,theduties,thebenefitsderivedareall
relevant and germane matters. In such circumstances, the decision in

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (supra) also cannot assist the
ba
y
Petitioners.
58]
Similarly,thedecisioninthecaseofPremChandSomchandShah
andanotherV/s.UnionofIndiaandAnotherreportedin(1991)2SCC
om
48 willnotassistthePetitioner. There,onfactsitwasfoundthatthe
relaxationcannotbeclaimedbythePetitioners becausetheywerenot
similarlysituate.Thegrantofadditionallicenseswhichwereentitledto
therelaxationstandonadifferentfootingandmerelybecauseadditional
licensesweregrantedtothePetitionerstheycannotclaimthebenefitof
therelaxation.Itisonthisfindingthattheprinciplereferredabovewas
applied. This judgment cannot assist the Petitioner. Rather it would
66/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
67
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
supportourconclusions. Justastherecannotbeanydiscriminationbut
equalitymustbemaintainedbetweenequals,unequalscannotbetreated
C
ou
equally. The Court found that the two classes and two persons were
unequals.
59]
The orders of admission of similar Writ Petitions by other High
60]
ig
h
CourtsinIndiacannotassistthePetitionerseither.
ThePetitionerhasrelieduponthejudgmentsandparticularlyonthe
roleofadvocatestowhichwehavealreadymadeadetailedreference.In
thesamedecision,theHon'bleSupremeCourthasstronglycommented
ba
y
uponthefallingstandardsintheprofession.Mr.Thackerplacesreliance
onthecodeofprofessionalethicscarvedoutbytheBarCouncilofIndiato
support his argument on the role and status of the advocates in the
om
society. We have referred to this very code and emphasized that the
advocategivesbenefitofhisservicetothelitigantandthelitigant/client
approaches him because of his learning, talent and his expertise. The
monopolystatusoftheadvocatehasanattachedandcorrespondingduty
tothepublic.Hehastorenderhisservicesselflesslyanditishisdutyto
theCourtwhichisparamountandhigherthanhisdutytohisclients.He
isnotamouthpieceofhisclient.Inthesecircumstances,thedecisionin
67/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
68
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
D.P.ChaddaV/s.TriyugiNarainMishraandothersreportedin(2001)
2 SCC 221 (paras 24 to 27) would support our view. Finally, the
C
ou
judgmentinthecaseofManoharanV/s.Sivarajanandothersreported
in(2014)4SCC163emphasizesthatArticle39Anotonlyincludesfree
legal aid by the appointment of counsel for litigants but also includes
ensuring that justice isnot denied to litigating parties due to financial
ig
h
difficulties. That aspect is taken care of in the present tax set up by

excludingfromthetaxnettheindividuallitigantsandservicesprovidedto
them by individual advocates. Therefore, there is no infraction of the

constitutionalmandate.
Now it is time to refer to the further amendments made to the
ba
y
61]
Finance Act firstly by Mega Notification No.25/2012 dated 20 th June,

2012. ThatmegaNotification proceedstoexemptthe taxable services
om
mentioned therein from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon
undersection66BofthesaidAct. ThesaidNotificationsupersedesthe
earliernotificationdated17thMarch,2012.Now,servicesprovidedbyan
ArbitralTribunaltoanypersonotherthanabusinessentityorabusiness
entitywithaturnoveruptoRs.10lakhsintheprecedingfinancialyearare
exemptedfromthewholeoftheservicetaxleviablethereonundersection
66BoftheFinanceAct. Similarly,servicesprovidedbyanindividualas
68/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
69
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
anadvocateorapartnershipfirmofadvocatesbywayoflegalservicesto
anadvocateorpartnershipfirmofadvocates,toanypersonotherthana
C
ou
businessentityorabusinessentitywithaturnoveruptoRs.10lakhsinthe
precedingfinancialyearandservicesprovidedbyapersonrepresentedto
an Arbitral Tribunal were exempted. This exemption takes care of
apprehension of Mr. Thacker that services provided by individual
ig
h
advocates or a firm of advocates to small time traders or businessmen

would be taxable. Now, the services provided by individuals as an
advocateorapartnershipfirmofadvocatesbywayoflegalservicestoany
personotherthanabusinessentityorabusinessentitywithaturnover
upto Rs.10 lakhs in the preceding financial year are exempt from the
ba
y
wholeoftheservicetaxleviablethereonundersection66BoftheFinance
Act.Therefore,thesmallbusinessman,pettytradersandpersonscarrying
om
onbusinessinindividualcapacitywouldbeabletoaffordtheservicesof
individual advocates or a partnership firm of advocates. In such
circumstancesandwhentheterm'businessentity'hasbeenunderstoodto
includeaindividualhewillnotbedeprivedofqualitylegalservicesifhis
turnover in the preceding financial year is within the limits specified
above.
62]
Thenextnotificationisno.30/2012dated20thJune,2012andthat
69/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
70
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
whilesupersedingtheearlierNotificationsof31 stDecember,2004and17th
March, 2012 proceeds to notify the taxable service and the extent of
C
ou
servicetaxpayablethereonbythepersonliabletopayservicetaxforthe
purposeofsection68(2).Now,thetaxableservicesprovidedoragreedto
beprovidedbyanArbitralTribunaloranindividualadvocateorafirmof
advocatesbywayofsupportservicestoanybusinessentitylocatedinthe
ig
h
taxable territory are brought within the net and stand covered by the
Finance Act. However, this Notification does not touch, far from
supersedingtheMegaNotificationNo.25/2012ofthesamedate,namely,
20thJune,2012.Allthatitstatesisthatthetaxableservicesprovidedor
agreedtobeprovidedbyanArbitralTribunaloranindividualadvocateor
ba
y
a firm of advocates by way of support services to any business entity

locatedinthetaxableterritoryareliabletoservicetax. However,ifthe
om
services are legal services, then, the recipient of the service or service
receiver has to bear the brunt and will pay the tax at 100%. This
Notification merely recognizes the fact that rendering of such services,

namely,legalandsupporttobusinessentitiesisthetrendoftheday.Even
anArbitralTribunalisnotplacedinthesamepositionasitwasandinthe
initialstageswhenArbitrationAct1940wasinforce.Thepositionand
roleofaArbitratorwasverysuccinctlydiscussedinaearlierJudgmentof
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India vs.
70/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
71
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
Joginderpal Mohinderpal and Anr. reported in AIR 1989 SC 1263.

Hon'bleMr.JusticeSabyasachiMukherjiasmyLordtheChiefJusticeof
andcommerciallaw,observedasunder:
C
ou
India,thenwasandknownforhiseruditionandlearninginArbitration
om
ba
y
ig
h
6.
..InIndia,thereisalonghistoryofarbitration.Arbitration
is a mode of settlement of disputes evolved by the society for
adjudicationandsettlementofthedisputesanddifferencesbetween
thepartiesapartfromthecourtsoflaw.Arbitrationhasatradition,
ithasapurpose. Arbitration,thatisareferenceofanyparticular
disputebyconsentofthepartiestooneormorepersonschosenby
thepartieswithorwithoutanumpireandanawardenforceableby
the sovereign power were generally unknown to ancient India.
Hindus recognised decisions of Panchayats or bodies consisting of
wealthy,influentialandelderlymenofthecommunityandentrusted
them withthepowerofmanagementoftheir religiousandsocial
functions. Thesanctionagainstdisobediencetotheirdecisionwas
excommunication,orostracismandexclusionfromthereligionsand
socialfunctionsofthecommunity. Anagreementtoabidebythe
decisionofaPanchayatanditsdecisionwithregardtothelineof
boundary was held not to be conclusive, since a reference to
arbitration and award properly socalled did not exist. See the
observationsinMukkudunsofKimkunwadyV/s.InamdarBrahmins
ofSoorpal,(184146)3MooIndApp383.SeealsoBachawat'sLaw
ofArbitrationatpage1.
7. WhenpowercametotheEastIndiaCompany,theyframed
RegulationsinexerciseofthepowervestedinthembytheBritish
Government. SomeoftheseRegulationsweretouchingarbitration.
BachawatgivesdescriptionoftheevolutionoftheArbitrationAct,
1940. Therefore, arbitration as a mode for settlement of disputes
betweentheparties,hasatraditioninIndia.Ithasasocialpurpose
tofulfilltoday.Ithasagreaturgencytodaywhentherehasbeenan
explosion of litigations in the Courts of law established by the
sovereignpower.Newrightscreated,orawarenessoftheserights,the
erosionoffaithintheintrinsicsenseoffairnessofmen,intolerant
anduncompromisingattitudesareallthefactorswhichblockour
courts.Thecourtsarefulloflitigations,whicharependingforlong
time. Therefore, it should be the endeavour of those who are
interested in the administration of justice to help settlement by
71/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
72
wp.1927.12.doc
After the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was enacted, the
63]
ig
h
C
ou
rt
arbitration,ifpossible.Ithasalsoasocialefficacybeingthedecision
by the consent of the parties. It has greater scope of acceptance
todaywhenthereisacertainerosionoffaithinviewofthefailureto
appreciating the functions of the courts of law. It has also the
advantageofnotquicknessofdecisionbutofsimplicityofprocedure.
Butinproceedingsofarbitrationthesemustbeadherencetojustice,
equity, law and fair play in actions. However, the proceedings of
arbitrationmustadheretotheprinciplesofnaturaljusticeandmust
beinconsonancewithsuchpracticeandprocedurewhichwillleadto
aproperresolutionofthedisputeandcreateconfidenceofthepeople
forwhosebenefittheseprocessesareresortedto.Itis,therefore,the
functionofcourtsoflawtooverseethatthearbitratorsactwithin
thenormsofjustice.Oncetheydosoandtheawardisclear,justand
fair,thecourtsshould,asfaraspossible,giveeffecttotheawardof
thepartiesandmakethepartiescompeltoadheretoandobeythe
decisionoftheirchosenadjudicator.
nature of the disputes referred to and to be resolved by arbitration
ba
y
demonstrate that the same has attained the character of corporate

luxury. The members of the Arbitral Tribunal and those representing
partiesbeforetheArbitralTribunalhavestartedoperatinginabusiness
om
like manner. ItisdifficultforindividualstoaffordtheArbitralservices

anylonger.TheheftyfeeschargedbytheTribunalandtheAdvocatesper
day and sometimes per hour make it difficult for litigants including
companies to bear the costs of Arbitration. There is no basis for the
argumentthatbytheservicetaxprovisionsection89oftheCodeofCivil
Procedureisgivenagobye.Wearesorrytosaythisbutdayafterdaywe
receivecomplaintsastohowarbitrationisbeyondthereachofacommon
72/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
73
rt
wp.1927.12.doc
man.Theycanhardlydreamofapproachinganarbitratorandwhowill
C
ou
settleorresolvetheirdisputesatareasonablecost,chargesandexpenses.
IfthearbitrationsareconductedinFiveStarHotelsandAirConditioned
Conference rooms, by incurring heavy costs and charges, then, those
appearingbeforethemwouldbeobligedtopaytheservicetax.Eventhe
ig
h
AbitralTribunalwillbeobligedtopayservicetax.Onceagain,wemean
no disrespect to the Arbitrators and the Tribunals presently functional
acrosstheCountry. Theattemptistoimpressuponthemthefactthat
theyareperceivedasAlternateDisputeRedressalMechanismandbrought
intoeffecttopromoteasociallylaudablecause.Itisnotanopportunityto
ba
y
makemoneypostretirementaswasnotedbynoneotherthanHon'bleMr.
JusticeJ.S.Verma,ExChiefJusticeofIndia.Heneverearnedmoneyas
anArbitratortillhisdeath.However,itistherecipientwhowillbearthe
om
burden.Insuchcircumstances,wedonotfindthattheNotificationmake
any difference to the position noted by us. Once the law has been
amendedandtheburdennowfallsontherecipient,then,allthemorethe
advocateswhetherappearingeitherindividuallyorasafirmcanhardly
complain. They come within the tax bracket only because they are
renderingservicetoabusinessentitylocatedintheTaxableterritory.Itis
only such service which is taxable. The individual advocate rendering
73/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
74
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
servicetoindividualisnotinanymanneraffected.Despitesupersession
oftheNotificationdated17 th March,2012hispositionisnotalteredor
C
ou
changedinanymanner.Theservicesrenderedbyanindividualadvocate
toanypersonotherthanabusinessentityortoanindividualadvocateor
apartnershipfirmofadvocatesprovidinglegalservicesisexemptedasthe
64]
ig
h
MegaNotificationremainsinthefieldandisunaffected.
The only argument now remains is that before the mega
Notificationwasissuedtheburdenofpayingservicetaxistobeborneby
theadvocatesthemselves. Thatcannotbeshiftedontothelitigantstill
dateofissuanceoftheMegaNotificationanditbeingbroughtintoeffect,
ba
y
istheargument.SuchadvocatesareclaimingthatthisNotificationof20 th
June,2012bearingNo.30/2012begivenaretrospectiveeffect.Itisnot
possible to accept this argument because the categories of advocates
om
mentionedintheseNotificationscannotclaimanexemptionfromthetax
andasofright.Thelegislaturehavingdecidedtogranttheexemptionand
equally to shift the burden on to the recipient from a particular date,

namely,prospectivelyandnotretrospectivelybyitselfdoesnotmeanthat
thedoctrineofequalityhasbeenviolated. Ifindividualadvocatesand
those providing services either individually or collectively to business
entities of the classes specified in the two Notifications No.25 and
74/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::
75
wp.1927.12.doc
rt
30/2012areincomparable,notequallysituate,then,allthemore,this
argumenthasnobasis. Thelegislaturehasachoiceandverywidein
C
ou
matters of taxation. It can include and exclude from the tax bracket
persons or classes of persons. It is free to decide on a cutoff date.
Equally it is free to legislate retrospectively in matters of taxation.

Similarly,ifitdecidesthataparticularprovisionoranenactmentwillhave
ig
h
prospective operation, the person on whom the burden falls cannot

complainthatthelegislaturemustgivesuchprovisionretrospectiveeffect.
There is no such right and particularly in matter of taxation. In such

circumstances,wedonotfindanymeritinthisargumenteither.
As a result of the above discussion, Rule in each of these Writ
ba
y
65]
Petitionsisdischarged. ThePetitionsaredismissed.Therewouldbeno
(A.A.SAYED,J.)
(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.)
om
ordersastocosts.
wadhwa
75/75
::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2014 19:50:53 :::

Service Tax To Advocates

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Service Tax To Advocates

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

Mr. Sushant Murthy i/b. N. S. Thacker for the Petitioner in

Rule. Respondents waives service. By consent, Rule made

(zzzzm)of the Finance Act,1994asinsertedbythe Finance

pleased to strike down the said provisions as ultra vires,

any other writ, order or direction of like nature, quashing

(d)In case the HighCourtis of the viewthat service tax is

The Respondent before us is the Union of India and Respondent

administration of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994as amended.

the 5th respondent is the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of

major stakeholders in the judicial system. If, therefore, Advocates are

It is submitted that the levy of Service Tax imposes a heavy

The said Amendment violates Article 14 of the Constitution

inasmuch as the said amendment discriminates between representation

arbitrary and is accordingly violative of fundamental rights guaranteed

legislature seems to have lost sight of the fact that eventually it is an

in a case, Petitioner may be an individual/State and the respondent a

which is the charging section. It is further submitted that in order to

provider and a recipient of service. In the case of the Petitioner, the

never be service in law.It is an adjudication recognizedbylaw asa

It is also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India

addition which is made as a result of rendition of a service. It flows

Judicial functions. LevyofServiceTaxonArbitrationgoesagainstthe

arbitration as it makes arbitration that much more costlier for the

The levy of Service Tax on advisory, consultancy and assistance

for Levy of Taxes on Services by the Central Government can only be

Central Government but presently is beyond the jurisdiction of the

basis. Hence to the extent of activities covered under section 65(105)

distracts professional time towards avoidable compliance. Also most

taxisleviableonlawyersthe provisionsof Rule 4Aof the ServiceTax

and Article 19(1)(g) as no practical purpose is served by requiring

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that

Hence I state that the Legislature or the Parliament is

taxing provisions, and lessening the tax burden on individual

With reference to paras 12, 13 and 14 of the Writ

With reference to paras 22, 23 and 24 of the Writ

With reference to para 25 of the writ petition, the

By imposing aprovisionfor timely issuanceofinvoices,

There is further affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.4 on

provided and available. The imposition of service tax on

It is on the above material that we have heard the counsel

Finance (Department of Revenue) No.15/2012Service Tax, dated 17 th

way of support services to any business entity located in the taxable

Mr. Thacker, therefore, submits that first of all no Service Tax is

individually or collectively. Assuming that Service Tax is leviable and

Petitioner wants to assert that no Service Tax is liable to be levied,

management consultants, and legal consultants, is identical or similar.

on advisory and consultancy services and to corporates or business

Even a sole proprietary concern and which is an individual business

accountants, engineering and management consultants, is ultra vires

cannot be treated equally and that also violates the constitutional

while presenting the union budget of 201112 indicates as to how the

State wishes to expand the scope of legal services to include services

the constitutional mandate. An impartial and independent judiciary

Service Tax. Therefore, the levy of Service Tax cannot be said to be

The compilation of the Notifications and relevant statutory

advocates rendering service to individuals would suffer immensely is

amendments made in 2011 service provider and recipient both were

individual as an advocate or a person represented on and as Arbitral

Notification No.15/2012 dated 17th March, 2012 services provided or

absolutely no substance in the challenge raised by the Petitioners.

Mr. Pakale submits that by the constitutional provision, namely, Article

carry on any profession, trade or occupation. In the present case an