On January 16, the Supreme Court raised objections to a lawyer addressing the court from his car, underscoring the importance of maintaining dignity in legal proceedings.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an appeal against a ruling by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which had quashed a Service Tax demand of Rs. 15.51 crore raised against the respondent.

During the proceedings, Justice Oka reprimanded Advocate JK Mittal, representing 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 apologized, clarifying that he had just concluded a matter before the Calcutta High Court and wanted to ensure his presence in the Supreme Court proceedings.

Justice Oka, however, noted that another counsel from Mittal's team, who was present in the courtroom, had objected to an adjournment request made by the appellant on health grounds.

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.”

The CESTAT judgment in question annulled a Service Tax demand of Rs. 15.51 crore for the period between December 2009 and March 2014, which had been raised against Telenor Consult AS.

The demand stemmed from the inclusion of reimbursements made directly by Indian companies to expatriate personnel under agreements with Telenor Consult AS. The tribunal ruled that these reimbursements should not be considered part of the taxable value, as the amounts were not charged by the service provider but were instead incurred by the service recipients.

The tribunal also concluded that the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, were not applicable to the case. It observed that the audit commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction by adjudicating the matter, which, according to departmental guidelines, should have been handled by the executive commissioner.

Furthermore, the tribunal emphasized that Telenor Consult AS had consistently filed returns and paid service tax on the amounts invoiced under the agreements, which demonstrated no intent of tax evasion.

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