{"id":43,"date":"2008-04-01T16:47:14","date_gmt":"2008-04-01T16:47:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=43"},"modified":"2008-04-01T16:47:14","modified_gmt":"2008-04-01T16:47:14","slug":"sales-tax-practitioners-vs-state-bombay-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/sales-tax-practitioners-vs-state-bombay-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Sales Tax Practitioners vs. State (Bombay High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/downloads2\/index.php?mvat_chartered_accountant_audit_constitutionality.pdf\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.itatonline.org\/images\/download.gif?w=605\" class=\"alignright\" border=\"0\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>S. 61 of the MVAT which confers right to do audit to CAs and excludes Advocates and STPs is neither discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable and consequently not unconstitutional. Only CAs are competent to perform audit functions having regard to the expertise achieved as a result of their academic knowledge and practical experience.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 61 of the MVAT which confers right to do audit to CAs and excludes Advocates and STPs is neither discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable and consequently not unconstitutional. Only CAs are competent to perform audit functions having regard to the expertise achieved as a result of their academic knowledge and practical experience.<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/sales-tax-practitioners-vs-state-bombay-high-court\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}