TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court invalidates tribunal's rejection of reference applications over lack of assessee signature, upholds legal practitioner's signature.</h1> The court quashed the order of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, which rejected reference applications due to the lack of signature by the assessee. The ... Validity of Application preferred by the petitioner - the said application was signed under the signature of the Counsel for the Petitioner as his agent - it was contended by Tribunal that since the application for reference was not signed by the assessee, the same was not tenable - whether the application was valid? Held that: - the person who had signed the application was a legal practitioner and had filed vakalatnama before the first authority by virtue of Rule 67. Authority of the legal practitioner continued till the termination of the proceedings. Not only this, FormA which is prescribed under Regulation 7 provides for signature either by the applicant as well as appointed agent, if any - the legal practitioner who was appearing on behalf of the assessee had himself offered to get the signature of the applicant after the Tribunal was of the view that it was necessary. The learned Tribunal could have very well permitted the applicant to put up signature on the application, in as much as it was only a technical error, if any. Matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for considering fresh - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues:Challenge to order of Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal on reference application not signed by assessee.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an order by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal rejecting the reference application as not tenable due to lack of signature by the assessee. The petitioner's appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, leading to the filing of reference applications. The Tribunal rejected the references based on an objection raised by the respondent, stating that the application was not signed by the assessee. The petitioner argued that the applications were entertained under the advocate's signature as per regulations. The respondent contended that the Tribunal correctly relied on previous judgments requiring the application to be signed by the aggrieved party. The court examined Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, emphasizing the requirement for an application in writing signed by the person affected. The petitioner's counsel cited Rule 61, stating the authority of the agent continues until the proceedings' termination, making the order unsustainable in law.The court referred to Rule 66 and 67 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, highlighting the form of authority under Section 71 for representation in proceedings. Section 71 allows representation by a legal practitioner, CA, or sales tax practitioner authorized by the person involved. The court noted that the legal practitioner who signed the application was authorized under Rule 67, and the Tribunal could have requested the applicant's signature if deemed necessary. The court distinguished a previous case where the advocate's vakalatnama was not filed, unlike in the present case. The court found the application by the legal practitioner as an agent to be valid and criticized a hyper-technical approach by the Tribunal. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The Rule was made absolute, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
