On January 16, the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of a lawyer addressing the court while seated in a car, emphasizing the importance of maintaining dignity in legal proceedings.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an appeal against a Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) decision. The tribunal had quashed a Service Tax demand of Rs. 15.51 crore raised against the respondent.
During the hearing, Justice Oka reprimanded Advocate JK Mittal, representing the respondent, for appearing in court proceedings from his car.
“We insist on the facility of hybrid hearing, but lawyers have to behave with the dignity of the profession. You can’t sit in the car and argue before the Supreme Court or for that matter any court,” he remarked.
In response, Advocate Mittal apologized, explaining that he had just finished a matter before the Calcutta High Court and wanted to ensure his participation in the Supreme Court hearing.
Justice Oka further noted that another lawyer from Mittal’s team had opposed an adjournment request by the appellant, citing the illness of their arguing counsel.
He questioned Mittal, “It was mentioned before us by the other side that their arguing counsel is unwell. Your counsel objected to adjournment. And now you’re sitting in the car and you want to argue. Is this fair?”
Mittal expressed regret, saying, “If the counsel is unwell, then I am sorry for this my lords.”
Justice Oka responded, “Just now your counsel objected that there is an earlier order saying no further adjournment. Is this the way members of the bar behave?”
The court ultimately granted an adjournment and rescheduled the matter for hearing on July 3, 2025. The bench’s order stated:
“On the ground that the arguing counsel is unwell, the earlier learned counsel for the respondent opposed the adjournment but later conceded. List on July 3, 2025.”
Read Also: Dhani Ram Mittal From Car Thief to Station Master, and Eventually a Judge releasing 2000+ prisoners
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from a CESTAT judgment that nullified a Service Tax demand of Rs. 15.51 crore for the period between December 2009 and March 2014. This demand was raised against Telenor Consult AS and pertained to reimbursements made directly by Indian companies to expatriate personnel under agreements with Telenor Consult AS.
The tribunal ruled that these reimbursements were not taxable as they were not charged by the service provider but incurred by the service recipients. It also held that provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, were inapplicable in this context. Furthermore, it found that the audit commissioner lacked jurisdiction over the matter, which should have been adjudicated by the executive commissioner in line with departmental guidelines.
Additionally, the tribunal highlighted that Telenor Consult AS had consistently filed returns and paid service tax on invoiced amounts under the agreements, negating any intention of tax evasion.
The Commissioner of Service Tax (Audit I) subsequently filed the current appeal challenging the CESTAT judgment.
Case Details:
- Case No.: C.A. No. 8764/2024
- Title: Commissioner of Service Tax (Audit I) v. Telenor Consult AS
