Advocate enrolment overrides sales tax practitioner status where misconduct action must be taken by the competent professional disciplinary authority.

Section 81 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 treats legal practitioners and sales tax practitioners as separate categories for appearance before tax authorities. Where the petitioner had first been registered as a sales tax practitioner but later enrolled as an advocate and acted in that capacity, disciplinary action for alleged misconduct had to lie before the authority competent over advocates, namely the State Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961. The Commissioner could not proceed against him on the footing that he remained liable as a sales tax practitioner. The show cause notice was therefore without jurisdiction and was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after enrolment as an advocate, the petitioner could still be proceeded against under Section 81(2) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 by the Commissioner as a sales tax practitioner, and whether the impugned show cause notice was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 81 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 recognises separate capacities of appearance before the tax authorities, namely by a legal practitioner, Chartered Accountant, Cost Accountant or a sales tax practitioner. The petitioner had first obtained registration as a sales tax practitioner but later acquired an advocate's enrolment and practised before the authorities in that capacity. The statutory scheme treats a legal practitioner and a sales tax practitioner as distinct professional categories. Where misconduct is alleged against a legal practitioner under Section 81(2), disciplinary action lies with the authority empowered over that profession, which in the case of an advocate is the State Bar Council under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Once the petitioner became an advocate, the earlier sales tax practitioner status stood superseded for the purpose of the impugned action. The Commissioner's notice, therefore, could not be sustained on the footing that the petitioner remained liable as a sales tax practitioner.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed. The petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: When a person enrolled as an advocate appears before tax authorities in that professional capacity, disciplinary action for alleged misconduct must be taken by the authority competent over that profession, and not by the tax Commissioner under the provision governing sales tax practitioners.

---