High Court deletes Service Tax Demand Against Lawyer:

Orissa High Court quashes service tax demand and penalty against Bhubaneswar lawyer, reaffirming exemption for legal professionals under the Finance Act, 1994.
Court Upholds Tax Exemption for Independent Legal Practitioners

Orissa High Court Deletes Rs. 2 lakh Service Tax Demand Against Bhubaneswar Lawyer
The Orissa High Court has cancelled a service tax demand of Rs. 2.14 lakh and a penalty of Rs. 2.34 lakh that was imposed on Shivananda Ray, a lawyer from Bhubaneswar. The HC confirmed that independent lawyers are not required to pay service tax on income earned from legal services under the Finance Act, 1994.
In the case Shivananda Ray v. Principal Commissioner CGST, the GST Department had sent Ray a notice on April 15, 2021, saying he did not pay service tax for the financial year 2015–16. As Ray did not reply, on August 9, 2024, the department issued an order against him, without even listening to his side.
The department alleged that Ray had disobeyed some tax regulations and defended the notice in court.
The court, led by Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice B.P. Routray, disagreed with the department. They said that practising lawyers like Ray are clearly exempt from paying service tax for legal work.
They also referred to a past ruling from 2021 and a circular issued by the tax department on April 9, 2021, which confirmed that legal services provided by individual lawyers or law firms to small businesses or non-business clients are tax-free.
The court cancelled both the tax demand and the penalty against Ray. However, it allowed tax officials to check Ray’s income from rented property (as shown in his income tax returns for 2018–19 and 2020–21) to see if that part is taxable.
This judgment, issued on April 7, 2025, emphasises that advocates should not be wrongly targeted with tax notices when their legal services are exempt, and it urges tax authorities not to send unnecessary demands in such cases.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2641My Recent Articles
- ITAT Remands Dispute of Addition Solely Based on Third-Party Statement and Without Establishing Any Nexus for Fresh AdjudicationPremium
- GST Authorities Propose Rs 15.41 Crore Demand Against Nuvoco Vistas’ Subsidiary Over ITC, Credit Notes
- Tata Steel Limited Secures Relief Rs 1,755.10 Crore GST Demand Raised Over Alleged Excess Coal Extraction
- Indian Railway Finance Corporation Faces Rs 549 Crore GST Demand Over Alleged Excess ITC Availment for FY 2022-23
- Section 23(5) Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively to Unsold Flats: ITAT Deletes Rs 31.56 Lakh Deemed Rent AdditionPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Tags
No tags yet.
Recent Posts
All Posts
Tags
No tags yet.








