9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (7) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing him to act and plead in these cases. The facts set out by the petitioner in his affidavit are that since 1948 the petitioner has been working as a recognised agent of various dealers in sales tax cases in the district of Shahjahanpur and in his capacity as agent he used to represent those dealers as their special agent appointed under special power of attorney in sales tax cases before the Sales Tax Officer, Judge (Appeals) and the Judge (Revisions). He used to prepare drafts of appeals and present petitions, memorandum of appeals and revisions. He was thus both acting and pleading for the dealers under the special power of attorney obtained from them. Thus he started to be regularly engaged in sales tax cases and this work was a source of livelihood to him. In 1951-52 the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax, Lucknow Range, raised an objection to the appearance of the petitioner before him. The Sales Tax Authorities prohibited him from acting and pleading in view of the provisions of rules 68(4) and 69 of the Sales Tax Rules. Thereupon in 1951 he made an application before the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax. On 3rd December, 1951, a communication was sent from the Judge (Revisions) Sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an application was filed before the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Lucknow, under the advice of Sri B.N. Roy, Advocate. By his order dated 25th August, 1955, the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax held that the petitioner had been given no right under rules 77A and 77B of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules to do anything apart from acting on behalf of a dealer and thus upheld the order passed by the Judge (Appeals). The order was sent to the petitioner on 30th September, 1955, and was received by him in the first week of October, 1955. After that the petitioner again approached the Government of Uttar Pradesh and in this connection met Sri Bharat Narain, Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, who gave him to understand that the matter was being considered by the U.P. Government and the petitioner meanwhile again applied to the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax, Lucknow Range, that he be permitted to appear and plead in appeals before him; but the application was rejected by an order of 5th November, 1955. As no decision, however, was given by the State Government the petitioner came to Allahabad in February 1956 to take legal advice and after consulting his counsel left certain papers with him. But as the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Sales Tax Officer who passed the order appealed against. (2) Notice of the date fixed under the foregoing rule shall be affixed in the court house and shall be served on the appellant and the Sales Tax Officer in the manner provided under rule 77. (3) The notice shall declare that if any party does not appear, the appeal shall be dismissed for default, or shall be heard ex parte, as the case may be. (4) On the date of the hearing, if the parties are present, the Judge (Appeals) shall give the appellant and the Sales Tax Officer or a lawyer or a registered accountant appointed by either of them in this behalf, a reasonable opportunity of being heard and may pass such orders as he thinks fit to dispose of the appeal. Rule 69 then provides for the appearance of parties before the Judge (Revisions). Sub-rule (7) of rule 69 reads as follows: "Any applicant or opposite party shall be entitled to have his case argued before the Judge (Revisions) by any practising lawyer of the High Court of the Uttar Pradesh or of the District Judge's Court of any district or a registered accountant". Rule 77A, as substituted by notification dated 15th December, 1954, is as follows: "Unless otherwis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been served on or given to the dealer in person, and all the provisions of the Act or the Rules relating to the service of process on or the giving of notice to a dealer shall be applicable to the service of process on or the giving of notice to such agent." In the earlier decision of this Court in the petition filed by the present petitioner, Radhey Shyam Tandon v. Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax[1952] 3 S.T.C. 329; A.I.R. 1953 All. 57. , on the reading of these rules it was held that rules 67, 68, 69 and 77A made it perfectly clear that while an agent has a right to act, that is, to present an application, to receive notices etc., the right to plead is restricted only to the party himself or a qualified pleader of a registered accountant engaged by a party. This decision therefore was not only based on the consideration of the petitioner's fundamental right claimed by him but also on the right claimed by the petitioner under the provision of rules 67, 68, 69 and 77A to plead if he had a power of attorney in his favour. The question, however, to be considered is whether the new rule 77A or 77B has in any way altered the position. To my mind the new rule 77A has not in any way altered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in support of the objections. The committee refused to hear such person, on the ground that the rule was not to hear any one other than the objector himself or a member of his family or household, or a member of the legal profession. On an application for a mandamus the Court of Appeal held that as statute gives the right to appear and be heard in support of his objections, and contains no provision prohibiting him from appearing by an agent, the committee were bound to hear the agent, and a mandamus was issued. Reliance was also placed on another case of Jackson & Co. v. Napper; In re Schmidt's Trade Mark35 Ch. D. 162. Particular reference was made to the following observations at page 172: "It is suggested that the Registrar of Trade Marks could not recognise an agent on behalf of an applicant. I cannot agree with that contention. It appears to me, in the first place, to be founded on a wrong view of the law. I take it that, subject to certain well-known exceptions, every person who is sui juris has a right to appoint an agent for any purpose whatsoever, and that he can do so when he is exercising a statutory right no less than when he is exercising any other right...... And I u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
