https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167841 The amended Rule 54 of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 and Form 41A were challenged for requiring audit reports to be furnished by a chartered accountant, thereby excluding legal and tax practitioners. The challenge was treated as identical to a prior constitutional controversy concerning comparable value added tax provisions, which had already been examined by the Bombay High Court and not disturbed in appeal when the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition. In view of that prior adjudication on the same issue, the amendment and Form 41A were upheld and the vires challenge failed. en-us Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:09:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167841 The amended Rule 54 of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 and Form 41A were challenged for requiring audit reports to be furnished by a chartered accountant, thereby excluding legal and tax practitioners. The challenge was treated as identical to a prior constitutional controversy concerning comparable value added tax provisions, which had already been examined by the Bombay High Court and not disturbed in appeal when the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition. In view of that prior adjudication on the same issue, the amendment and Form 41A were upheld and the vires challenge failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167841