Lawyers Must Behave With Dignity Of The Profession: Supreme Court Objects To Advocate Addressing Court From Car

The Supreme Court today (January 16) objected to a lawyer addressing the court from his car, emphasizing the need for dignity in legal proceedings.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was dealing an appeal against a decision of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashing a Service Tax demand of Rs. 15.51 crore raised against the respondent.

During the proceedings, Justice Oka chided Advocate JK Mittal for the respondent for addressing the court while sitting in a 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.

Advocate Mittal apologised, explaining that he had just completed a matter before the Calcutta High Court and intended to ensure his presence in the Supreme Court proceedings.

Justice Oka pointed out that another counsel from his team who was present in the court had objected to an adjournment sought by the appellant due to health reasons.

He asked 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 apologized, stating, “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 matter was ultimately adjourned and scheduled for hearing on July 3, 2025. In its order, the court noted:

“On the ground that arguing counsel is unwell, the earlier learned counsel for the respondent opposes the adjournment. Later on concedes for grant of adjournment. List on 3rd July, 2025.”

Background of the Case

The CESTAT judgment in question quashed a Service Tax demand of Rs. 15.51 crore for the period between December 2009 and March 2014, raised against Telenor Consult AS. The demand was based on the inclusion of reimbursements made directly by Indian companies to expatriate personnel under agreements with Telenor Consult AS. The tribunal held that these reimbursements did not form part of the taxable value, as the amounts were not charged by the service provider but were incurred by the service recipients.

The tribunal also found that reliance on provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, were inapplicable to the case. It noted that the audit commissioner had exceeded jurisdiction by adjudicating the matter, which should have been handled by the executive commissioner as per departmental guidelines. Additionally, the tribunal highlighted that Telenor Consult AS had regularly filed returns and paid service tax on amounts invoiced under the agreements, negating any intent of tax evasion.

Thus, the Commissioner of Service Tax (Audit I) filed the present appeal against the CESTAT judgment.

Case no. – C.A. No. 8764/2024

Case Title – Commissioner of Service Tax (Audit I) v. Telenor Consult AS