Advocate Chauhan Wins Service Tax Quash

Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 15 October 2026

Parties: Petitioner Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan, a practising advocate, versus Union of India & others (respondents). Counsel for petitioner: Anupam Dighe with India Law Alliance; counsel for respondents: Shruti Vyas with Mamta Omle.
Petition: Filed under Article 226 seeking declaration that three notices – SCN No.155/AC/DIV‑IV/ME/2020‑21 dated 30‑12‑2020, Order‑in‑Original No.18/GAK/AC/R.R.CHAUHAN/Thane/2024‑25 dated 23‑06‑2024, and Recovery Letter F.No.CGST/DIV‑IV/R‑IV/ITR Diff‑2015‑16/69/2020‑21 dated 27‑11‑2024 – are bad in law, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the statutory scheme governing legal services rendered by an individual advocate.
Allegations: The notices imposed service tax liability of Rs.21,93,153 on the petitioner, despite his status as an advocate, without applying Notification No.25/2012‑Service Tax and Notification No.30/2012‑Service Tax dated 20‑06‑2012, which exempt legal services from such tax. The demand was based solely on Form 26AS.
Respondents' Position: The impugned orders are in consonance with the Finance Act, 1994.
Court's Observations: The respondents' reliance on Form 26AS alone and failure to consider the statutory notifications render the proceedings without jurisdiction. The issue is covered by the decision in Adv. Pooja Patil Vs. Deputy Commissioner, CGST and CX, Division VI (2024 (15) Centax 144 (Bom.)).

The Court allowed prayer clauses (a) and (b), quashing the SCN, the Order‑in‑Original, and the Recovery Letter.
It issued a writ of certiorari to examine the records and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents and their agents to withdraw the impugned notices.
The orders are effective immediately.

Topics: Service Tax, Legal Services Taxation