The bench also ruled that the respective professional bodies — Bar Council, ICAI, and ICWAI— are the authorities empowered to prosecute these professionals for any misconduct
A division bench of Justices AS Dave and Biren Vaishnav of Gujarat High Court has ruled that misconduct proceedings cannot be initiated against advocates, chartered accountants, and cost accountants under the Gujarat VAT Act. The bench also ruled that the respective professional bodies — Bar Council, ICAI, and ICWAI— are the authorities empowered to prosecute these professionals for any misconduct.
The decision came in response to a petition filed by Pravin Modh against the misconduct proceedings initiated by the VAT authorities against him for alleged connivance with his clients in questionable transactions. While the petitioner holds a certificate as a sales tax practitioner since 1977, he enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Gujarat in 1983. Modh had challenged the showcause notice issued by the VAT authorities for his disqualification under Section 81 (2) of the VAT Act for defrauding the government by conniving with his clients and by representing them as a legal practitioner.
It was contended that such a showcause notice could not have been issued to him, as he was acting as the legal practitioner and not as a tax practitioner, having acquired a degree in law and being enrolled with the Bar Council of Gujarat since 1983.
Senior advocate Mihir Joshi, appearing for the petitioner, contended that after being enrolled with the Bar Council of Gujarat, the certificate issued by the tax commissioner registering him as a sales tax practitioner stood superseded. It was also submitted that he was taking part in the proceedings as a legal practitioner as envisaged under the Act.
The counsel for the state government, however, contended that although the petitioner was registered with the Bar Council, his enrollment as a sales tax practitioner was not canceled. Therefore, the commissioner is entitled to take action against the petitioner.
The court, however, agreed to the contentions raised by Modh and ruled in his favour.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Gujarat High Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}