Holding

The right to appear before a sales tax authority does not constitute practising the profession of law, so the appellant is not eligible for enrollment under clause (aa) of Section 24(3) of the Advocates Act.

Summary

L.M. Mahurkar, a sales tax practitioner with only a matriculation qualification, was denied enrollment as an advocate by the Bar Council of Maharashtra after the Advocates Act, 1961 came into force. He claimed that his prior right to appear before the Bombay Sales Tax Authority, exercised under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, entitled him to be enrolled under clause (aa) of Section 24(3) of the Advocates Act, which covers persons who were entitled to practise law before 1 December 1961. The Supreme Court examined whether such appearances constitute "practice of the profession of law". It held that the statutes and rules expressly distinguish sales‑tax practitioners from legal practitioners and that appearance before a sales‑tax authority is essentially an accounting function, not legal practice. Consequently, the appellant did not fall within the ambit of clause (aa) and his appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether appearance before a sales tax authority under the Bombay Sales Tax Act amounts to practising the profession of law within the meaning of clause (aa) of Section 24(3) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Whether a sales tax practitioner can be considered a person entitled to practise law before 1 December 1961 for purposes of enrollment as an advocate.

Legislation cited

Advocates Act, 1961s. 24(3)(aa), s. 29
Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959s. 71
Bombay Sales Tax Ruless. 66
Central Board of Revenue Act, 1924
Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1961s. 286
Income Tax Act, 1961s. 288

Subjects

Advocates Actenrollmentsales tax practitionerprofession of lawSection 24(3)(aa)Bombay Sales Tax Actlegal practitionerqualification

Judgment

L.M. MAHURKAR A
v.
THE BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

APR! L 8, 1996

[.l.S. VERMA, S.C. SEN AND S.B. MAJUMDAR, JJ.]
B

Advocates Act, 1961-Section 24(3)(aaf--Appearance before Sales Tax
Authority prior to enactment of Advocates Act-Denial of enrolment as all
advocate after enactment of Advocates Act-Appearance before Sales Tax
Auth01ity--Whether amounts to practise the profession of /aw-Held, the C
Bombay Sales Tax Act and the Rules do not suggest that the appearance
before Sales Tax Auth01ity amounts to e11titleme11t to practise the profession
of law as contemplated by Advocates Act.

Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959-Section 71-Bombay Sales Tax D
Rules-Rule 66-Appearance before Sales Tax Autlwrity p1ior to enactment
of Advocates Act-Enrolment as a11 Advocate denied after enactment of
Advocates Act-Appearance before Sales Tax Auth01ity--Whether amounts
to practise the profession of law-Held, ap(JJ1; from legal practitioner many
other persons empowered to appear before Sales Tax Authority-Clem· dis-
tinction has been drawn between legal practitioner and sales tax prac- E
titioner-Hence, niere appearance would not tum a sales tax practitioner into
a legal practitioner.

Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1961-Section 286.

Appellant, a matriculate, not having degree of law & not passed any F
accountancy examinations, was a Sales Tax Practitioner under provisions
of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. On enactment or Advocates Act, 1961, he
was denied enrolment as an Advocate by the Bar Council.

He filed a writ petition before High Court claiming to be enrolled as G
an Advocate which was dismissed.

In appeal to this court the appellant contended that he was entitled
to be enrolled as an Advocate by virtue of the provisions of Section
24(3)(aa) Adv<:ates Act, 1961, as he was entitled to practise the profession
of law before 1st December, 1%1 by virtue of the provisions of the Bombay H
8~ .
•
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

Held : 1.1. There is nothing in the provisions of the Bombay Sales
Tax Act or the Rules framed thereunder to suggest that the right of
B appearance before 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. (93-A]

1.2. Section 71 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 empowers not only
legal practitioners but many other persons to appear before a Sales Tax
c Authority. 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 Sales Tax Cases. That will not turn a Sales
Tax practitioner into a legal practitioner. (89-G-HJ

D 1.3. Rule 66 of Bombay Sales Tax Rules goes to show that apart from
· lawyers and chartered and cost accountants, other persons are allowed to
practise in the Sales Tax Department as Sales Tax Practitioners, 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 Sales Tax practitioner does not carry on the profession
E
of law, when he appears before a Sales Tax Officer. This practice is more
in the nature of that of an accountant. (92-G-H; 93-A)

1.4. The category, to which the appellant claims to belong, is the
category of Sales Tax practitioners, who possess lhe prescribed qualifica-
F !ions. Assuming that the appellant, who is stated (o be only a matriculate,
bas 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
G to appear before Sales Tax authorities on behalf of the dealers. The list
includes an employee, a relative, a Sales Tax practitioner and also profes-
sionally qualified people like lawyers and accountants. The right to appear
before the Sales Tax authority is not confined to lawyers only. (90-D-F]

1.5. After passing of the Advocate Act, only one class of persons i.s
H entitled to practise the profession of law, namely, advocates (section 29).
L.M. MAHURKAR v. BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA [SEN, J.] 87

If the phrase 'practice the profession of law,' is equated to appearance A
before the Sales Tax Authority in that event, a chartered accountant or a
cost accountant or even a relative as an employee of an assessee will not
be entitled to appear before a Sales Tax Authority after the Advocates Act
came into force. If the contention of the appellant is accepted, after the
appointed date the Sales Tax practitioner who does not have a degree in
B
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 sale tax authority notwithstanding the provisions of section 71
of Bombay Sales Tax Act. (93-B-D)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4797 of C
1934.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.81 of the Bombay High
Court in S.C.A. No. 1104 of 1979.

V.N. Ganpule, Alok Singh and Ms. V.D. Khanna for the Appellant. D
'
V.B. Joshi for the Respondents.

Pramod Swamp for the Bar Council of India.
. '
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E I
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
practise in sales tax matters at Nagpur under the provisions of the Bombay
Sales Tax Act, 1959. The appellant claimed that when the Advocates Act, F
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 G
virtue of the provisions of sub-section (3)(aa) of Section 24 of the Advo-
cates 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 1st December, 1%1 by virtue of the
provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Therefore, his right to be
enrolled as an advocate could not be denied. H

'
88 SUPREMECOURTREPOR\S [1996] SUPP. lS.C.R. •

A 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 not-
withstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a vakil or a pleader who is
B a law graduate may by admitted as an advocate under certain circumstances.
Sub-section (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
c person who -

(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 ~igh Court or a former
Part B State) or of a Court of Judicial Commissioner in any
D 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
E in public service on the said date; or

(b) .. .

(c) .. .

F 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 a11y law before 1st day of
December, 1961. The appellant's case that he wa's appearing in sales tax
matters before sales tax authorities under Bombay Sales Tax Act has not
G 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 lo appear before a sales tax authority.
Section 71 provides :

'71. Appearance before a11y authority in proceedings : (1) Any
H person, who is entitled or required to attend before any authority

• '
L.M. MAHURKAR v. BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA (SEN, J.] 89

in connection with any proceeding under this Act, may attend - A

(a) by a relative or a person regularly employed by him, or

(b) by legal practitioner or Chartered Accountant or Cost Account·
ant, who is not disqualified by or under sub-section (2), or
B
(c) by a sales ta'< practitioner who possesses the prescribed qualifica-
tions 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 c
Accountant, Cost Accountant or sales tax practitioner is authorised
by such person in the prescribed form, and such authorisatioP may
include the authority to act on behalf of such person in such
proceedings.
D
(2) The Commissioner may by order in writing and for reasons to
be recorded therein disqualify for such period as is stated in the
order from attending before any such authority, any legal prac-
titioner, Chartered Accountant, Cost ACcountant or sales tax prac-
titioner, -
E
(i) who has been removed or dismissed from Goverrunent
service, or

(ii) who being a legal practitioner, Chartered Accountant or
Cost Accountant is found guilty of misconduct in connec-
tion with any proceedings under this Act by an authority F
empowered to take disciplinary action against the member
of the profession to which he belongs, or

(iii) who being a sales ta« practitioner is found guilty of such
misconduct by the Commissioner."
G
It clearly appears that a distinction has been drawn between a legal
practitioner and a sales tax practitioner in Sec(ion 71. Both may appear
before an authority in connection with sales 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 H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
•
A 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 dtherwise to practise the
profession of law by virtue of Section 71 of the lfombay Sales Tax Act.

B The second category of persons, who are entitled to appear before
sales tax authorities under clause (b) of SectiQn 71, arc professionally
qualified persons. A legal practitioner or a chartered accountant or a cost
accountant may appear before a sales tax authodty on behalf of his client.
Such appearance by a lawyer or an accountant will be in the course of
c carrying on his profession of law of accountancr, 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. '

D
The third category, to which the appella.n~ claims to belong, is the
category of sales tax practitioners, who possess the prescribed qualifica-
tions. Assuming that the appellant, who is stated! to be only a Matriculate,
has acquired the prescribed qualifications and h~s been included in the list
of persons qualified to appear before the sales tax authorities, he cannot
E 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
F 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 a11thority, he falh within the
category of persons entitled to practise the profession of law by virtue of
the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.

G 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 prac-
titioner 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
H profession of law when he appears before the statutory authority and
L.M. MAHURKAR v. BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA [SEN, J.] 91

produces the accounts. He may even be called upon to explain the accounts A
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 proceed-
ings. 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.
B
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 c
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 ex-
amination of accountancy which he may have passed. The appellant in
reply in his letter dated 3rd January, 1979 stated :
D
"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 11-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 enrolment or registration as Sales Tax E
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 p
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 G
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 qualjfied ~bartered 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 : H

'
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A "66 Qualifications of a Sales Tax practitioner : (1) A Sales Tax
Practitioner shall be eligible for having his name ;entered in the list
of sales tax practitioners maintained under Sect\on 71, if-

(a) he has passed an accountancy examination, recognized by
the Central Board of Revenue constituted under the
B Central Board of Revenue Act, 1924 (IV of 1924), for the
purpose of clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 288 of
the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or

(b) he has acquired such educational qualifications as are
c 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

D (c) (Deleted by G.N. of 4.12.1962).

(d) he was formerly an employee of the Sales Tax Depart-
ment, 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 :"
E
The requirements of Rule 66 go to show that sale$ tai< 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
F down that an Authorised Representative who is not 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 p~ssed any of the
accountancy examinations recognised by the Central Board of Revenue or
•
has a"'tuired a degree in commerce from a recognised University. These
G 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 account-
.ancy. They will have to pass one of the many recognised accountancy
courses for this purpose. This goes to show that the sales tax practitioner
H does not carry on the profession of law when he appears before a Sales

f
LM.MAHURKAR v. BAR COUNCILOFMAHARASHTRA[SEN,J.] 93

Tax Ofliccr. His practice is more in the nature of that of an accountant. A
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 B
appellant will lead to anomaly and must be avoided. After passing of the
Advocates Act, only one class of persom is entitled to practise the profes-
sion 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 C
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 D
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
E
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. F

- K.T. Appeal dismissed.

'