S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Rule. Respondents waives service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, a practicing advocate prays for the following reliefs:-

"(a) Declare the impugned provisions in section 65(105)(zzzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 as inserted by the Finance Act, 2011 as null and void and ultra vires the Constitution of India and/or section 66of the Finance Act, 1994 and/or be pleased to strike down the said provisions as ultra vires, arbitrary and violative of Articles 13, 14,19(1)(g), 246, 265 and 268A of the Constitution of India.

(b) Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction of like nature, quashing section 71(A)(5)(d) of the Finance Act, 2011.

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, restraining the Respondents themselves, by their servants, agents and subordinates from, directly or indirectly giving effect to or acting upon the impugned amendment or collecting Service Tax on the basis of section 65(105)(zzzzm) read with section 66 as substituted by Finance Act, 2011.

(d) In case the High Court is of the view that service tax is leviable on Advocates hold that the provisions of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, provisions relating to levy of penalty under section 77of the Finance Act, 1994 and prosecution under section 89 of the Finance Act, 1994 to the extent they are made applicable to Advocates for non issue of invoices within 14 days of the completion of service are ultra vires the Finance Act, 1994 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India."

3. The reliefs are claimed in the following factual background.

The Petitioner is an Indian citizen and a practicing Advocate. He claims to be affected by the levy of Service Tax on Advocates.

4. The Respondent before us is the Union of India and Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are the officers of the Respondent No. 1, for the administration of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended. The 3rd Respondent is the Central Board of Excise and Customs whereas the 5th respondent is the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, All India Federation of Tax Practitioners and Sales Tax Tribunal Bar Association. They claim to be affected by the imposition and levy of Service Tax on Advocates.

5. It is the case of the Petitioner that section 65(105)(zzzzm) of the Finance Act, 1994 as inserted by the Finance Act 2009 and substituted by Finance Act 2011, proceeds to levy Service Tax on the Advocates. The understanding of the Petitioner and the association of advocates supporting him is that the amendment to Finance Act as referred above levies, assesses and recovers Service Tax from Advocates and that would be violative of the constitutional guarantee of justice to all. It is their submission that justice cannot be secured unless a cause or a legal proceeding is represented properly and effectively before a Court. It is the duty of the Advocates to represent the cause of the litigant before the Court of law to the best of their ability. It is submitted that the Advocates are engaged not only for aid and advice but also for appearance and representation of a case in Court. It is not possible for litigants to argue their cases before the Court of law because they may involve complicated factual and legal issues. In such circumstances, when administration of justice is a sovereign and regal function of the State and Advocates are part of the same, then, they cannot be said to be rendering any service and of the nature envisaged by the Service Tax Act/Finance Act. Legal profession has not been understood from times immemorial as a profit making activity or venture. It is not a business or trade. It is a solemn duty which is performed for the litigants including the State