Section 71 authorisation before sales tax authorities covers appearance and pleading, and is chargeable to court-fee rather than stamp duty.

Section 71 authorisation in the prescribed form for attendance before sales tax authorities need not contain every contractual term of engagement; it covers the right to appear and plead, while authority to act remains separate and depends on express agreement. For advocates, the statutory right to practise includes appearance and pleading when authorised. The article also states that such authorisations filed before executive taxing authorities are chargeable to court-fee under item 12 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court-fees Act, not to stamp duty under the Bombay Stamp Act, because the authorities are executive officers rather than courts. It notes that the impugned demands were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an authority filed under section 71 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, in the prescribed form, must necessarily contain all contractual terms of engagement and whether authority to attend includes the right to appear and plead. (ii) Whether the authorisation required under section 71 is chargeable with stamp duty under the Bombay Stamp Act or with court-fee under item 12 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court-fees Act.

Issue (i): Whether an authority filed under section 71 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, in the prescribed form, must necessarily contain all contractual terms of engagement and whether authority to attend includes the right to appear and plead.

Analysis: Section 71 requires authorisation in the prescribed form for attendance before sales tax authorities, and the form itself contemplates attendance, with an additional and separate authority to act if the parties so agree. The statutory language and the form do not warrant a construction that every engagement must include all ancillary terms, nor that the prescribed form excludes other terms of contract between the assessee and the authorised person. The authority to attend is directed to appearance before the authority and, in substance, must include the right to appear and plead; authority to act remains distinct and depends on express agreement. As to advocates, their statutory right to practise includes appearing and pleading when authorised.

Conclusion: The authority to attend includes the right to appear and plead, but not the authority to act unless that is specifically included; the prescribed form may also contain agreed contractual terms of engagement.

Issue (ii): Whether the authorisation required under section 71 is chargeable with stamp duty under the Bombay Stamp Act or with court-fee under item 12 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court-fees Act.

Analysis: The sales tax authorities under the Act are executive officers and not courts or revenue courts. A vakalatnama or mukhtyarnama filed before such executive authorities therefore falls within the court-fee regime applicable to filings before executive officers, rather than the stamp-duty provision for powers-of-attorney under the Bombay Stamp Act. Since the instrument is chargeable with court-fee under the Court-fees Act, it is excluded from the charging provision of the Stamp Act.

Conclusion: The authorisation is chargeable with court-fee of Rs. 2 under item 12 of Schedule II of the Bombay Court-fees Act and not with non-judicial stamp duty under the Bombay Stamp Act.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demands were set aside, and the petitions succeeded with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: An authorisation under section 71 to attend before sales tax authorities confers the right to appear and plead, while the instrument filed before executive taxing authorities is chargeable with court-fee rather than stamp duty when the governing court-fee entry applies.

---