Case: L.M. Mahurkar Vs. The Bar Council Of Maharashtra And Another

The appellant claims that he was a Sales Tax Practitioner in 1949 when the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (21 of 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 (51 of 1959). The appellant claimed that whenthe Advocates Act, 1961 came into force, he was entitled to be enrolled as an advocate by the Bar Council of Maharashtra

Reasoning:
7. 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 Act8. 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 law11. 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 authorised 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 recognised by the Central Board of Revenue or has acquired a degree in commerce from a recognised 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 recognised 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 Act12. 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, 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 Act13. 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