The Allahabad High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation questioning the imposition of 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on online legal research platforms, including SCC Online and Manupatra, citing the delay in bringing the challenge.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra declined to examine whether the tax classification was constitutionally valid. Instead, the Court dismissed the petition at the admission stage, questioning why the petitioner had challenged a tax structure that had remained in place since 2017 only after several years of legal practice.
The petition was filed by advocate Aniket Gupta in Aniket Gupta v. Union of India and 4 Others.
The Bench observed that the petitioner, who enrolled as an advocate in 2020 and claimed to have practised for approximately six years, had demonstrated a sudden realisation that the existing tax rate was unreasonable. The Court found this delay sufficient to reject the plea without examining its substantive arguments.
Petition highlights unequal tax treatment
The petition challenged the classification of digital legal research and educational database services under Services Accounting Code (SAC) 998431, which attracts GST at 18%. Platforms and publications cited in the plea included SCC Online, Manupatra, LexisNexis, LiveLaw and Bar & Bench.
The petitioner argued that legal research services were being taxed more heavily than comparable resources available in other formats. Printed law reports are exempt from GST, while e-books attract a 5% rate. Online journals supplied to educational institutions are also exempt under the applicable provisions, the petition stated.
According to the plea, imposing an 18% tax on substantially similar material merely because it is accessed through an online legal database creates an unjustified distinction between print and digital formats.
The petitioner maintained that access to these platforms is not a discretionary expense for advocates. They are essential professional tools for locating judgments, researching legal principles and preparing accurate submissions before courts.
Subscription costs cited as a burden on junior advocates
The petition also drew attention to the financial pressure the tax places on young practitioners. An annual single-user subscription to SCC Online can cost as much as ₹39,530, including approximately ₹6,030 in GST, according to the plea.
The amount, it argued, represents a significant expense for junior advocates, particularly those working on limited stipends. The petition further pointed out that advocates who are not registered under GST, along with legal aid counsel who cannot claim input tax credit, must absorb the tax as an additional cost.
This, the petitioner contended, makes access to reliable legal research more expensive and potentially affects the ability of practitioners to provide affordable legal services.
AI-related judicial scrutiny cited in support
The plea also relied on recent Supreme Court decisions in Pooja Ramesh Singh and Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya, delivered in July and September 2026, respectively.
According to the petitioner, these rulings underscored the need for strict verification of judicial precedents and addressed the professional consequences of relying on fabricated or AI-generated citations without proper verification.
The petition argued that commercial legal research databases have consequently assumed greater importance as tools for checking judgments and ensuring the accuracy of court submissions. In this context, the petitioner maintained that the higher GST rate places an additional financial burden on services that advocates increasingly need to meet their professional obligations.
The High Court, however, did not assess these arguments or determine whether the tax classification was arbitrary or unconstitutional. By dismissing the petition on the ground of delay, the Bench left the substantive challenge to the 18% GST levy undecided.