A petition by JK Mittal, owner of JK Mittal and Company, a Delhi-based law firm, The bench, comprising J. S Muralidhar and J. Pratibha M Singh has asked the Centre unless the central government issues clarification, not to take coercive action against any lawyer or law firm on failure to implement:
- Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act (DGST).
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST).
- Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act.
The petitioner argued that the notification issued was in violation with the provisions of the DGST Act and the CGST Act read with Article 279A of the Constitution and has negative consequences on the legal fraternity as it was the receiver of the services who would be responsible for paying the taxes and not the law firm.
The petitioner had also drew attention on why there is a need to re-register someone as lawyer under CGST Act for even those practitioners who were registered under the Finance Act way back in 2011 and must be exempted from such a requirement under the new law.
The court has observed that there was no clarity on if all legal services provided by firms and legal practitioners would be governed by this reverse charge mechanism.