1957 (7) TMI 31 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Petitioner denied right to plead in sales tax appeals under U.P. Sales Tax Rules

Shri Radhey Shyam Tondon Versus Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax, Lucknow Range, Lucknow and Another

The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to claim the right to plead in sales tax appeals under the relevant provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax ... - Issues Involved:1. Right to act and plead in sales tax appeals and revisions.2. Interpretation of rules 67, 68, 69, 77A, and 77B of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules.3. Common law right to appoint an agent for representation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Right to act and plead in sales tax appeals and revisions:The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax and the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, which prohibited him from appearing and arguing in sales tax appeals despite holding a special power of attorney from the dealers. He also sought a writ of mandamus to compel these authorities to allow him to appear and plead in all pending appeals and revisions where he had filed a special power of attorney.2. Interpretation of rules 67, 68, 69, 77A, and 77B of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules:The petitioner argued that rules 77A and 77B granted him the right to act and plead in all appeals before the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax if he had obtained a special power of attorney from the assessee. He contended that the refusal to hear him amounted to a denial of the assessee's right to be heard. However, the court noted that rules 67, 68, and 69 explicitly provided that while an agent could act (e.g., present applications, receive notices), the right to plead was restricted to the party himself, a qualified pleader, or a registered accountant. The court emphasized that the new rule 77A did not alter this position, as it was confined to acting and not pleading. Rule 77B, which provided control over agents, also did not affect the interpretation of rules 67, 68, and 69.3. Common law right to appoint an agent for representation:The petitioner argued that the right to be heard included the right to be represented by an agent, citing cases such as 'Queen v. Assessment Committee of Saint Mary Abbotts, Kensington' and 'Jackson & Co. v. Napper; In re Schmidt's Trade Mark.' The court acknowledged the principle that a person sui juris could appoint an agent unless expressly prohibited by statute. However, it concluded that the specific provisions of rules 67, 68, and 69 expressly limited the right to plead to the party, a lawyer, or a registered accountant, thereby restricting the common law right to appoint an agent for pleading purposes.Conclusion:The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to claim the right to plead under the provisions of rules 67, 68, 69, 77A, and 77B. It rejected the petition, stating that there was no force in the petitioner's arguments, but made no orders as to costs. The petition was thus dismissed.