http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: L.M. MAHURKAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/04/1996

BENCH: SEN, S.C. (J) BENCH: SEN, S.C. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1602            JT 1996 (4)   224  1996 SCALE  (3)399

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T SEN, J.      The  appellant   claims  that   he  was   a  Sales  Tax Practitioner in  1949 when  the Central  Provinces and Berar Sales Tax  Act, 1947  was in  force in  the State  of Madhya Pradesh and,  thereafter he  continued his practice in sales tax matters  at Nagpur  under the  provisions of  the Bombay Sales Tax  Act, 1959.  The appellant  claimed that  when the Advocates Act,  1961 came  into force, he was entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate by the Bar Council of Maharashtra.      It has  been contended  by  Mr.  Ganpule  appearing  on behalf of  the appellant, that the appellant was entitled to be enrolled  as an  Advocate by  virtue of the provisions of sub-section (31(aa)  of Section  24 of  the  Advocates  Act, 1961. There  is no dispute that he does not have a degree in law or  for that  matter any  degree, but he is a person who was entitled  to practise  the profession  of law before Ist December, 1961  by virtue  of the  provisions of  the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Therefore, his could not be denied.      We shall  have to  examine whether the appellant’s case comes  within  the  provisions  of  sub-section  (3)(aa)  of Section 24 of the Advocates Act to justify the claim made by Mr. Ganpule.  Sub-section (1)  of Section  24 lays  down the qualifications which  must be acquired by a person who wants to be  admitted as  an advocate on a State roll. Sub-section (2) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1)  a vakil  or a pleader who is a law graduate may be admitted  as an  advocate  under  certain  circumstances. Subsection (3)  deals with  cases of persons who do not fall either under  sub-section (1)  or (2).  Sub-section  (3)  of Section 24 is as under:      "24(3).  Notwithstanding   anything      contained  in  sub-section  (1),  a      person who

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

    (a) has,  for at least three years,      been  vakil   or  a  pleader  or  a      mukhtar, or  was  entitled  at  any      time to  be enrolled  under any law      as an  advocate  of  a  High  Court      (including a High Court or a former      Part B  State) or  of  a  Court  of      Judicial Commissioner  in any Union      territory; or      (aa)  before   the   1st   day   of      December,   1961,    was   entitled      otherwise than  as an  advocate  to      practise  the   profession  of  law      (whether  by  way  of  pleading  or      acting or  both) by  virtue of  the      provisions of any law, or who would      have been  so entitled  had he  not      been in said date; or      (b) . . .        . . .      . . .      (c) . . .        . . .      . . .      Since the  appellant’s claim is confined to clause (aa) of sub-section  (3), it  will have to be examined whether he was entitled  ’to practise  the profession of law’ by virtue of the  provisions of  any law  before 1st  day of December, 1961. The  appellant’S case  that he  was appearing in sales tax matters  before sales tax authorities under Bombay Sales Tax Act has not been disputed. But that does not mean he was practising the  profession of  law. Section 71 of the Bombay Sales Tax  Act, 1959 empowers not only legal practioners but many other  persons to  appear before a sales tax authority. Section 71 provides:      "71.    Appearance    before    any      authority  in  proceedings:(1)  Any      person, who is entitled or required      to attend  before any  authority in      connection  with   any   proceeding      under this Act, may attend-      (a)  by  a  relative  or  a  person           regularly employed by him or      (b)  by   legal   practitioner   or           Chartered Accountant  or  Cost           Accountant,   who    is    not           disqualified by  or under sub-           section (2), or      (c) by a sales tax practitioner who           possesses    the    prescribed           qualifications and  is entered           in   the   list,   which   the           Commissioner shall maintain in           that behalf,  and who  is  not           disqualified by  or under sub-           section (2),           if   such   relative,   person      employed,    legal    practitioner,      Chartered     Accountant,      Cost      Accountant     or     sales     tax      practitioner is  authorized by such      person in the prescribed formed and      such authorization  may include the      authority to  act on behalf of such      person in such proceedings.      (2) The  Commissioner may  by order      in writing  and for  reasons to  he      recorded  therein   disqualify  for      such period  as is  stated  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    order  from  attending  before  any      such    authority,     any    legal      practitioner, Chartered Accountant,      Cost  Accountant   or   sales   tax      practitioner,-      (i)  who   has  been   removed   or           dismissed   from    Government           service, or      (ii) who being a legal practitioner           Chartered Accountant  or  Cost           is found  guilty of misconduct           in   connection    with    any           proceedings under  this Act by           an authority empowered to take           disciplinary  action   against           the member  of the  profession           to which he belongs, or      (iii)who   being    a   sales   tax           practitioner is  found  guilty           of  such   misconduct  by  the           Commissioner."      It clearly  appears that  a distinction  has been drawn between a legal practitioner and a sales tax practitioner in Section  71.   Both  may   appear  before  an  authority  in connection with sale-s tax cases. That will not turn a sales tax practitioner  into a legal practitioner. Even a relative or an  employee of  an assessee  may appear  on  his  behalf before a  sales tax  authority. He  does not require to have any special  qualification for  doing that  If  an  employee appears regularly  for his employer in connection with sales tax cases  of his  employer before a sales tax authority, he cannot be  treated to  be a  legal practitioner  or entitled otherwise to  practise the  profession of  law by  virtue of Section 71 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.      The second  category of  persons, who  are entitled  to appear before  sales tax  authorities under  clause  (b)  of Section 71,  are professionally  qualified persons.  A legal practitioner or  a chartered accountant or a cost accountant may appear  before a  sales tax  authority on  behalf of his client. Such appearance by a lawyer or an accountant will be in the  course of  carrying on  his  profession  of  law  or accountancy, as  the case  may be. It cannot be said that an accountant carries  on the profession of law when he appears before the  sales tax  authority, nor  can it be said that a lawyer carries  on the  profession of  an accountant when he appears before a sales tax authority. The third category, to which the  appellant claims  to belong,  is the  category of sales  tax   practitioners,  who   possess  the   prescribed qualifications. Assuming  that the  appellant} who is stated to be  only  a  Matriculate,  has  acquired  the  prescribed qualifications and  has been included in the list of persons qualified to  appear before  the sales  tax authorities,  he cannot be  treated as  a person  entitled to practise either the profession  of law  or the  profession of accountancy. A large number of persons have been permitted to appear before sales tax  authorities on  behalf of  the dealers.  The list includes an  employee a  relative, a  sales tax practitioner and also  professionally qualified  people like  lawyers and accountants.  The   right  to  appear  before  a  sales  tax authority is  not confined to lawyers only. We are unable to uphold the  contention that merely because the appellant has been permitted  to appear  before the sales tax authority he falls within  the category  of persons  entitled to practise the profession  of law  by virtue  of the  provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

    Moreover, appearance before the sales tax authority may only be  for the  purpose of  filing a  return and producing documents in  support  of  the  return.  A  relative  or  an employee or an accountant or a sales tax practitioner can be asked to  do this  job by an assessee for and on his behalf. That does  not mean that any one of the aforesaid Persons is practising the  profession of  law when   he appears  before the  statutory  authority  and produces the accounts. He may even be called upon to explain the accounts  or justify  the entries   made in   the  accounts books.  There    may    be problems   only   of   book-keeping   and accountancy    and nothing   of    law   in   such   proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be  inferred straightaway that because the sales  tax practitioner has  been given  a right  to appear  before   a statutory   authority,   he  is   practising  the profession of law.      There is  also another  aspect of the matter. The exact qualification of  the appellant  and the  nature of his work has not  been set  out in  the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution  before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. It was stated by Mr. Ganpule that the petitioner is a Matriculate. The Secretary, Bar Council of Maharashtra, by a letter dated  27th December,  1978 called upon the appellant to produce  the application  made by  him to  the Sales  Tax Officer  initially   for  registration   as  a   sales   tax practitioner.  The   appellant  was   also  asked   to  give particulars of  any examination  of accountancy which he may have passed.  The appellant in reply in his letter dated 3rd January, 1979 stated:      "I have   to  state   that   I  did      not     pass     any    accountancy      examination since   that  was   not      necessary   to qualify  for a sales      Tax   Practitioner under    section      II-B(2) of  the C.P.  & Berar Sales      Tax  Act,  1947.  Similarly,  under      that Act,  there was  neither   any      provision  or any  requirement  for      formal enrollment  or  registration      as   Sales Tax   Practitioner,  but      the then   Commissioner  of   Sales      Tax did not maintain a list of such      Sales Tax Practitioner. Since I was      such a Sales Tax Practitioner under      that Act,   I practised  right upto      31st December,  1959,    when  that      Act was  repealed on  1.1.1960  but      the Bombay  Sales Tax Act 1960, and      by virtue  of the  Savings  Section      77(1)(c)  of the  Repealing Act,  I      was   entitled  to  practice  under      the Bombay   S.T.  Act,   1960  and      get   myself enrolled as  Sales Tax      Practitioner  under     Section  71      read with Rule 66(2) of that Act."      The question  asked by  the Secretary,  Bar Council  of Maharashtra, is also important for the purpose of this case. The sales tax practitioner is required to be conversant with accountancy  principles  and  practice.  He  may  not  be  a qualified chartered  accountant or a cost accountant, but he must have  some familiarity  with accountancy practice. This is apparent  from the requisite qualification of a sales tax practitioner under Rule 66 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules:      "66. Qualification   of a Sales Tax      practitioner:    A     Sales    Tax

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

    Practitioner:-(1)   A    sales  Tax      Practitioner     shall  be eligible      for   having his   name entered  in      the list of sales tax practitioners      maintained under Section 71, if-      (a) he   has  passed an accountancy           examination,   recognized   by           the Central  Board of  Revenue           constituted under  the Central           Board of   Revenue  Act,  1924           (IV of  1924), for the purpose           of clause  (v)   of subsection           (2)  of  Section  288  of  the           Income-tax Act,  1961  (43  of           1961), or      (b)  he     has   acquired     such           educational qualifications  as           are prescribed  by the Central           Board of  Revenue  constituted           under the  Central   Board  of           Revenue Act, 1924 (IV of 1924)           for the  purpose  of    clause           (vi)  of  sub-section  (2)  of           Section 288  of the Income-tax           Act, 1961  (43 of 1961), under           Rule  51   of  the  Income-tax           Rules, 1961, and      (c) (Deleted by G.N. of 4.12.1962).      (d) he  was formerly an employee of           the Sales  Tax Department,  he           is   in the   opinion  of  the           Commissioner a  fit and proper           person to   attend before  any           Sales Tax authority as a Sales           Tax practitioner:"      The requirements  of Rule  66 go to show that sales tax practitioner, who  has not  got a  degree in law or is not a qualified chartered or cost accountant, will have to acquire some knowledge  of accountancy.  Even  Section  288  of  the Income Tax  Act and  the Rules  framed thereunder, lays down that  an  Authorized  Representative  who  is  not  a  legal practitioner entitled  to practise  in any  civil  court  in India or  a Chartered Accountant or a person qualified to be an auditor  of a  company may be allowed to appear before an Income  Tax   Authority,  if   he  has  passed  any  of  the accountancy examinations  recognized by the Central Board of Revenue  or  has  acquired  a  degree  in  commerce  from  a recognized University.  These rules  go to  show that  apart from  lawyers  and  chartered  or  cost  accountants,  other persons are  allowed to practise in the Sales Tax Department as Sales  tax practitioner  provided they have acquired some knowledge of  accountancy. They will have to pass one of the many recognized  accountancy courses  for this purpose. This goes to  show that the sales tax practitioner does not carry on the  profession of law when he appears before a Sales Tax Officer. His  practice is  more in  the nature of that of an accountant.  Therefore,   we  are   unable  to   uphold  the contention that  merely because the appellant was allowed to practise as  a sales  tax practitioner, he is entitled to be enrolled as  an advocate  by virtue  of  the  provisions  of clause (aa) of sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act.      It may  also  be  pointed  out  that  the  construction suggested by  the appellant will lead to anomaly and must be avoided. After  passing of the Advocates Act, only one class of persons  is entitled  to practise  the profession of law,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

namely, advocates  (Section 29). If the phrase ’practise the profession of law’ is equated to appearance before the sales tax authority,  in that  event, a  chartered accountant or a cost accountant  or even  a relative  or an  employee of  an assessee will  not be  entitled to appear before a sales tax authority after  the Advocates Act came into force. Not only that, if  the contention of the appellant is accepted, after the appointed  date the  sales tax practitioner who does not have a  degree in law will not be entitled to be enrolled as an advocate,  will not be able to practise the profession of law and  consequently will  not be able to appear before any Sales  tax   authority  notwithstanding  the  provisions  of Section 71 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.      We are  of the  view  that  there  is  nothing  in  the provisions of  the Bombay  Sales Tax Act or the rules framed thereunder to  suggest that the right of appearance before a sales tax  authority amounts  to entitlement to practise the profession of  law as  contemplated by  clause (aa)  of Sub- section (3) of Section 24 of the Advocates Act.      Therefore, this  appeal fails  and is  dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.