« From the Courts » Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs  Karnataka High Court restrains Bengaluru-based Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India from enrolling candidates for its courses  Attachment on Cash Credit of Assessee under GST Act: Delhi HC directs Bank to Comply Instructions to Vacate  Income Tax Addition Made Towards Unsubstantiated Share Capital Is Eligible For Section 80-IC Deduction: Delhi High Court  Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings  Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT  Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.  ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand  Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities  [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court  Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger  Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court «  ESI payable to employees having wages upto Rs.10,000 per... CBDT has notified amendments to existing form 3CD (Tax audit... » CA firm is not a shop under Bombay Shops and Establishments Act August, 15th 2006 A 30-year-old battle later chartered accountants (CAs) in Maharashtra have regained their position as "learned professionals'' on the same footing as the three traditional professions-church, medicine and law. Significantly, CA firms would no longer have to abide by the labour laws that are part of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. In a landmark order, the Bombay high court has held that the office of a chartered accountant was not a "business and commercial'' establishment. A division bench of Justice S B Mhase and Justice S R Sathe struck down as "unconstitutional'' sections of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act that included CAs within the definition of commercial establishments. The court's orders came on a petition filed by one of the city's top CA firms, Ms A F Ferguson and Company, and six of its partners. Senior advocate Jamshed Cama had challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment in the Act in 1977, which brought CA firms within its purview. Cama contended that the CA firm was not involved in commercial activities but a profession that involved intellectual skill and manual skill controlled by intellectual skill. It did not deal with production or sale of commodities. Associate Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, representing the state, contended that the CA firms had many employees and was essentially a commercial venture. The major impact of the judgment would be that CA firms would no longer have to abide by the labour laws that are part of the Act. The Bombay Shops and Establishments Act provides for specific work hours and holidays for employees as well as health and safety measures. The Act laid down that employees working in such establishments would not work for more than eight hours in a day with a recess of one hour and or more than 48 hours in a week.  The judges observed that CA firms were being wrongly equated with shops. "The working hours of the office of the chartered accountant cannot be regarded like that of a shop or establishment,'' said the judges. "It will be difficult to maintain relations and entertain clients by the CAs.'' The judges referred to a 1964 judgment that addressed similar questions and held that the three traditional professions had to change with time and new developments in trade, commerce and industry require a new class of professionals-chartered accountants.