https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=699 The Court clarified that an Advocate-on-Record can engage a Counsel to represent a client without the need for a separate Vakalatnama from the client. The Tribunal's failure to distinguish between the roles of Advocate-on-Record and Counsel led to the quashing of its order. The Court emphasized the importance of understanding the distinct functions of these legal professionals. The judgment allowed the Counsel to appear and argue for any party upon the Advocate-on-Record's instructions through a Vakalatnama, without requiring the Counsel to be designated as a senior Advocate. The Writ Petition was allowed without costs. en-us Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=699 The Court clarified that an Advocate-on-Record can engage a Counsel to represent a client without the need for a separate Vakalatnama from the client. The Tribunal's failure to distinguish between the roles of Advocate-on-Record and Counsel led to the quashing of its order. The Court emphasized the importance of understanding the distinct functions of these legal professionals. The judgment allowed the Counsel to appear and argue for any party upon the Advocate-on-Record's instructions through a Vakalatnama, without requiring the Counsel to be designated as a senior Advocate. The Writ Petition was allowed without costs. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=699