Order dated: 15 September 2022

Fact 

• The petitioner, Madhu Sudan Mittal, Senior Advocate practicing in Ranchi High Court. 
• A demand notice was issued by the authority concerned for payment of service tax on legal services provided by the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2016 to 05.06.2016 as per Notification No.18/2016-ST dated 1.3.2016
• The appellant stated that Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 has been amended by way of substitution by virtue of two consecutive notifications, i.e., Notification No. 18/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 and Notification No.34/2016-ST dated 06.06.2016, and since these amendments have been made by way of substitution, the said amendments will be applicable from the date of the original document i.e. From 20.06.2012. 
• Thus there is an exemption on such services provided by the appellant. 

Issue 

• Whether the amendments made by the way of substitution is applicable from the date of its original document? 

Order 

• The Hon’ble High Court observed that Notification No.30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 exempt the appellant from paying service tax on legal services provided to an advocate or firm other than business entity with turnover up to Rupees ten lakhs in preceeding financial year. 
• This provision has been amended by virtue of Notification No.18/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 by way of substitution. Subsequently, the said notification has further been amended by way of substitution vide Notification No.34/2016-ST dated 06.06.2016. 
• Thus both the amendments dated 01.03.2016 and 06.06.2016, are by way of substitution. Since both the amendments are by way of substitution and the amendment by way of substitution relates back to the original document. It has also been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Zile Singh v. State of Haryana – 2004 and Government of India and Others v. Indian Tobacco Association [(2005) 7 SCC 396] 
• Hence, the demand notice is quashed and set aside.