Skip to main content

Delhi HC Questions The Legal Sanctity Of Finance Ministry’s Press Release On GST On Legal Services


The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, asked the Centre to clarify the “legal sanctity” of the Press Release issued by it earlier this week, wherein the Ministry of Finance had clarified that legal services provided by an individual Advocate, including a Senior Advocate and a Firm of Advocates, is liable for payment of GST under reverse charge(RCM) by the business entity.
The question was posed by a Bench comprising Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice Pratibha M. Singh, after Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Central Government’s Standing Counsel presented before it the Press Release issued by the Ministry of Finance. 
Several queries on the release cropped up during the hearing, pursuant to which, Mr. Narula sought time to seek instructions on the following questions in particular: (i) Whether there were any further recommendations of the GST Council on ‘legal services'after the recommendations made at the 14th Meeting of the GST Council held on 19th May, 2017.
(ii) What is the legal sanctity of the Press Release?
(iii) Whether on a reading of Article 279A of the Constitution read with provisions of the CGST, IGST and DGST Acts, the recommendations of the GST Council could be modified, clarified, amended etc. by a notification/notice/circular of ‘press release’ and, if so, by whom? Mr. Narula has also been directed to ascertain whether a lawyer or a law firm, which has been registered under the Finance Act, 1994 could opt to de-register or surrender the registration, and if a mechanism was devised for such purpose. The Court, thereafter, issued the following interim orders:  
“(i) no coercive action would be taken against advocates, law firms of advocates including Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) of advocates providing legal services for non compliance with any legal requirement under the CGST, DGST, or IGST Act; and (ii) Any advocate, law firm of advocates, LLPs of advocates who are providers of legal services, who have registered under the CGST, DGST, or IGST Act from 1st July, 2017 will not be denied the benefit of this interim order.
(iii) In view of the Press Release issued by the Ministry of Finance as shown to the Court today, and the instructions given to Mr. Narula to the effect that the legal position that existed under the Finance Act, 1994 as regard legal services being amenable to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism continuing even under the CGST, DGST or IGST Acts, till further orders, all legal services provided by advocates, law firms of advocates, or LLPs of advocates ‘will be continued to be governed by the reverse charge mechanism unless of course any such legal service provider wants to take advantage of input tax credit and seeks to continue with the voluntary registration under Section 25 (3) of the CGST Act and the corresponding provisions of IGST or DGST Act.”
The Bench also directed the Respondents to file a para wise reply to the Petition and specifically answer the queries posed by it in its earlier order as well today’s order. The Bench had, last week, opined that as of date, there is no clarity on whether all legal services provided by legal practitioners and firms would be governed by the reverse charge mechanism.
The Court is hearing a Petition filed by J.K. Mittal & Company, which has challenged notifications issued by the Centre and Delhi Government, wherein it was prescribed that advocates and law firms would pay the tax on all services offered by them. Only representational services were made an exception, dictating that it would be the clients who would pay the tax for such services. The Petitioner has claimed that this is contrary to the recommendation made by the GST Council that the service recipient would pay the tax on all services offered by a lawyer and a law firm.
Besides, the Petitioner has also sought clarification on the need for re-registration for lawyers who had already registered themselves under the Finance Act, 1994.
The Business standard, New Delhi, 20th July 2017

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Shrinking footprints of foreign banks in India

Shrinking footprints of foreign banks in India Foreign banks are increasingly shrinking their presence in India and are also becoming more conservative than private and public sector counterparts. While many of them have sold some of their businesses in India as part of their global strategy, some are trying to keep their core expertise intact. Others are branching out to newer areas to continue business momentum.For example, HSBC and Barclays Bank in India have got out of the retail business, whereas corporate-focused Standard Chartered Bank is now trying to increase its focus on retail “Building a retail franchise is a huge exercise and takes a long time. You cannot afford to lose it,” said Shashank Joshi, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ’s India head.According to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) data, foreign banks’ combined loan book shrunk nearly 10 per cent from Rs 3.78 trillion in fiscal 2015-16 to Rs 3.42 trillion last financial year. The banking industry, which includes foreign banks…

New money laundering norms stump jewellery sector

New money laundering norms stump jewellery sector Dealers with turnover of Rs 2 crore and above covered; industry says threshold too low The central government has notified the money laundering rules for the gems and jewellery sector with immediate effect. Now, any entity deals in precious metals, precious stones, or other high-value goods and has a turnover of Rs 2 crore or more in a financial year will be covered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA, 2002). The limit of Rs 2 crore would be calculated on the basis of the previous year’s turnover, said the notification. The directorate general of goods and service tax intelligence has been appointed under the Act. Sources said the government’s move to apply the PMLA to the jewellery sector was a fallout of income-tax raids on jewellers soon after demonetisation last November, when it was found that they sold gold and jewellery at a huge premium and accepted old currency notes as payment. The notification, issued on Augus…

Confusion over branded food GST

Confusion over branded food GST The GST Council's statement over the weekend on applying tax on branded food items has left most of the trade confused.

Even though the Council has not changed the rates on food -0 per cent on unbranded stuff and 5 per cent on brands -many small traders who didn't levy GST earlier said they could come under the 5 per cent slab after the clarification.

While they predicted some increase in consumer prices, large players said they can absorb GST in many ways and keep prices steady.

"Trade is confused and hence on behalf of our chamber, we have asked our members to go ahead and charge 5 per cent GST," said Sushil Sureka, general secretary of the Ahilya Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Indore.

The statement clarifying the application of GST came after some businesses were found deregistering their brands and selling under corporate brand name without paying tax, after the Council exempted unbranded food from the new all-encompassing indirec…