2016 (5) TMI 1466 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Jurisdiction - power of Commissioner to disqualify from attending before any authority in connection with any proceedings under the Act, any legal practitioner, Chartered Accountant, Cost Accountant or sales tax practitioner - case of petitioner is that it is the Bar Council of Gujarat which would be empowered to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and not the Commissioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner no longer continues to be a sales tax practitioner as envisaged under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 81 of the GVAT Act. Held that - Issue Notice returnable on 9th June, 2016. By way of ad-interim relief, the respondent is restrained from proceeding further pursuant to the impugned show cause notice dated April, 2016 (Annexure D to the petition).

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of sub-section (2) of section 81 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 regarding disqualification of legal practitioners attending proceedings under the Act.

In this case, the petitioner, a legal practitioner, challenged a notice issued by the Commissioner under sub-section (2) of section 81 of the GVAT Act. The petitioner argued that as he was enrolled with the Bar Council of Gujarat and no longer a sales tax practitioner, the Commissioner lacked authority to disqualify him. The petitioner contended that the Bar Council of Gujarat should be empowered to take disciplinary action against him, not the Commissioner. The petitioner relied on the distinction between a legal practitioner and a sales tax practitioner under the Act to support his argument. The High Court, after hearing the submissions, issued a notice returnable on a specified date and granted ad-interim relief by restraining the respondent from further proceedings based on the impugned notice. Direct service was permitted for certain respondents.

The primary issue in this judgment revolves around the interpretation of sub-section (2) of section 81 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, concerning the disqualification of legal practitioners attending proceedings under the Act. The petitioner, a legal practitioner, challenged a notice issued by the Commissioner under this provision, arguing that the Commissioner lacked authority to disqualify him as he was enrolled with the Bar Council of Gujarat and no longer a sales tax practitioner. The petitioner contended that disciplinary action, if required, should be taken by the Bar Council of Gujarat, not the Commissioner. This argument was supported by the petitioner's transition from being a sales tax practitioner to a legal practitioner, as defined under different clauses of the GVAT Act.

The petitioner's case hinges on the distinction between a legal practitioner and a sales tax practitioner under the GVAT Act. The petitioner highlighted that he was initially registered as a sales tax practitioner but later obtained an LL.B. degree and enrolled with the Bar Council of Gujarat. As per the petitioner's submission, he was attending proceedings under the GVAT Act as a legal practitioner, not a sales tax practitioner. The petitioner emphasized that under sub-section (2) of section 81 of the GVAT Act, only the Bar Council of Gujarat could take disciplinary action against him for any misconduct, given his current status as a legal practitioner. Therefore, the petitioner argued that the Commissioner's notice disqualifying him lacked legal authority, and the Bar Council of Gujarat should be the relevant authority for any disciplinary actions.

After considering the arguments presented by the petitioner, the High Court issued a notice returnable on a specific date and granted ad-interim relief by restraining the respondent from further proceedings based on the impugned notice. Additionally, direct service was permitted for certain respondents, indicating the Court's recognition of the seriousness of the issues raised and the need for a thorough examination of the legal provisions and implications involved in the case.