|
|
|
| « From the Courts » |
|---|
 Court On Its Own Motion vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) | | Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-9, New Delhi Room No. 357, ARA Centre, E-2 vs. M/s Moets Bar-B-Cue,50, Defence Colony Market, New Delhi 110 024 PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFM7936M | | ADIT, Cir. 1(1), (Intl. Taxation), 204, Drum Shape Building, IP Estate, New Delhi 110 002 vs. Ms. Meena Chopra, P-13, Ground Floor,Malviya Nagar, New Delhi | | CIT vs. Awadh Hotels (P) Ltd (Allahabad High Court) | | BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER | | BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER | | Mehsana Circle Vs Mehsana M/s.Shree Riddhi Corporation 32, Amikunj Society Near Technical School, Kalol | | ITO, Ward 40(3), Room No. 307, Mayur Bhavan, vs. Sh. Mohan Lal Walia, Through L/H Mrs. Prem Walia, G-251, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, | | M/s. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd.5th Floor, Diamond Square, C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E),Mumbai – 400 098. | | Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1), Room No. 413, CR Building, New Delhi vs. Maharani Paints India Pvt. Ltd., TA-3/146-C, Tuglakabad Extn.,New Delhi | | Income Tax Officer, Ward 38(2), Room No. 234A, 2nd floor, CR Bldg., IP Estate, New Delhi vs. Sh. Naresh Kumar Through Legal Heir Sh. Naveen Kumar, 9307, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj Delhi – 110 006 |
|
|
|
|
|
| « "The interpretation of Section 254(2) regarding powers of... | SC modifies Advance Ruling on FBT and rules AAR with respect... » |
Only CAs can audit, certify sales tax returns: SC |
|
|
| May, 17th 2008 |
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the order which had said that only chartered or cost accountants will be eligible to audit and certify sales tax returns. The decision will affect lawyers specialising in sales tax laws and former sales tax officers who work as sales tax practitioners.
A bench comprising Justice H K Sema and Justice Markenday Katju dismissed the petitions filed by the Sales Tax Practitioners Association of Maharashtra and the Bar Council of Maharashtra. It upheld Bombay high court order which had said that only chartered accountants or cost accountants would be eligible to certify sales tax returns.
The high court while upholding an amendment to Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act had observed that the objective is to facilitate prevention of evasion of tax. The Act makes it mandatory for traders with annual sale of over Rs 40 lakh to file sales tax returns verified only by chartered or cost accountants.
Earlier, traders had to hire only sales tax lawyers or former sales tax officers as advisers in tax matters. But a recent amendment to the Act made it mandatory for traders with sale of over Rs 40 lakhs to get their accounts audited and certified only by a chartered or cost accountant.
The amendment specifies that only a CA can audit the account and allows lawyers and other sales tax practitioners to represent traders before sales tax commissioner and tribunals, but specifically bars them from auditing accounts.
According to the high court, as per the Advocates Act, 1961, advocates can only practice law, and that prevents them from working as an auditor. The petitioners claimed that this restraint violated right to equality enshrined in the constitution and would force traders to cough up extra money for engaging CAs or cost accountants. Holding that advocates and other sales tax practitioners were not qualified for this job, the high court had said, auditing is a specialised job which can be undertaken by the person professionally competent and trained to audit.
ORDER
Decision will affect lawyers specialising in sales tax laws and former sales tax officers who work as tax practitioners
The Act makes it mandatory for traders with annual sale of over Rs 40 lakh to file sales tax returns verified only by CAs or cost accountants
|
|
|
