Lawyers not liable under consumer Act: SC

KK Venugopal wins stay on service tax for lawyers😄😄😄😄

The Supreme Court today stayed the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of a challenge to the levy of service tax on lawyers. The stay was ordered in an appeal filed by the Bombay Bar Association.

Senior Advocate KK Venugopal appeared for the petitioner before Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy. The Bench tagged the matter with similar petitions pending before the Supreme Court. The Court also stayed the Bombay High Court order of December 15, 2014.

The case has its genesis in sub-clause (zzzzm) of clause (105) to Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2011. The said section seeks to levy service tax on fees paid by clients to lawyers. The said section was challenged by various Bar Associations and lawyers in different High Courts across the country. High Courts including the Delhi High Court stayed the operation of the impugned Section while keeping the matter pending.

However, during the operation of stay in other States, petitions filed in Bombay High Court were dismissed in December 2014. One of the petitioners before the Bombay High Court, PC Joshi, had already challenged the order of Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court had issued notice in that case. This present petition has been filed by Bombay Bar Association.

In its petition, a copy of which is with Bar & Bench, the Association has raised, inter alia, the following questions of law:

“(a) Whether the relationship between an advocate and a litigant is that of a service provider and a service recipient or whether the relationship is that of a representative and a litigant?

(b) Whether the High Court ought to have considered that since the Finance Act, 2011 is a central legislation, thus the levy being in the nature of a federal tax, the incidence of taxation cannot vary in different jurisdictions and thus, pending the adjudication of the impugned levy in various High Courts, and stay orders having been granted therein, the High Court ought not have proceeded to decide the issue in such a hasty manner.

……

(e) Whether the term business entity used in sub –clause (1) of clause (zzzm) can be said to include within its fold any firm or association that provides legal services of any nature considering the legal profession was always an honourable profession which is the antithesis of a business.

…….

(h) Whether the judgment affirming the levy of service of tax on the transaction of rendition of assistance to the court for a proper and correct decision on a question of law and fact is incorrect/ wrong as the transaction of rendering assistance to the court of law as an officer of the court does not amount to service at all?

(j) Whether the impugned judgment is correct and legal in as much as levy of service tax on the provision of assistance to the court would hit the provision of justice either by the individual or a business entity as both are indisputably guaranteed under right to justice in terms of Article 21 read with Article 39A of the Constitution.”

The court after a brief hearing tagged the matter with other petitions pending before the Supreme Court. The Court also stayed the Bombay High Court order of December 15, 2014.

--------------------'--------'''''''---------

😄😄😄😄😄Lawyers not liable under consumer Act: SC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a ruling of the apex consumer forum holding that services rendered by an advocate to his client in the course of litigation be covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. 

A Bench comprising Justices L S Panta and B Sudershan Reddy stayed the ruling of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which was challenged by a large number of advocate bodies after lawyers raised a hue and cry over the prospect of being sued by clients for deficient service. 

The appeals were filed by Bar of Indian Lawyers, Delhi High Court Bar Association and Bar Council of India. One of the lawyers' bodies represented by advocate Jasbir Malik argued that lawyers rendered legal assistance and not service to the clients. One Devender Kumar Gandhi had filed a complaint before District Consumer Redressal Forum alleging deficiency of service against his lawyer M Mathai. The district forum on June 1, 2000, held the lawyer liable and asked him to pay Rs 3,000 as compensation for mental agony and another Rs 1,000 as cost. 

On the appeal filed by the lawyer, the state commission reversed the finding and said that lawyers were not liable to be proceeded against as the services rendered by them did not come within the ambit of the consumer law. 

However, the NCDRC set aside the state commission's verdict and held that if there was deficiency in service rendered by lawyers, complaint under Consumer Protection Act was maintainable against them.
Collected & Circulated in the interest of society for enhancing legal awareness-
Adv.Sanjay J. Gaikwad.

Please forward this msg to your contacts & groups.
Supreme Court held yesterday: "Notwithstanding that there is no provision in Cr.P.C for amendment, magistrate can allow amendment of criminal complaint to cure the infirmity."
S.R.Sukumar vs. S.Sunaad Raghuram (Criminal Appeal No. 844  OF 2015)
“Why Political Parties should not be brought under RTI?” SC issues Notice | Live Law - http://www.livelaw.in/why-political-parties-should-not-be-brought-under-rti-sc-issues-notice-to-six-political-parties-election-commission-and-centre/
Great news for Advocates !!

Practicing and appearing, even before a Tax Tribunal, by
Chartered Accountant
and
Company Secretary
is
unconstitutional
and
unsustainable in law.

AIR 2015 SC 1571 :
Madras Bar Association
vs.
Union of India.