{"id":8258,"date":"2014-08-09T09:23:00","date_gmt":"2014-08-09T03:53:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=8258"},"modified":"2014-08-09T09:25:42","modified_gmt":"2014-08-09T03:55:42","slug":"tax-lawyers-association-vs-state-of-u-p-allahabad-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/tax-lawyers-association-vs-state-of-u-p-allahabad-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Tax Lawyers Association vs. State of U.P (Allahabad High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=1317\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=1317&varname2=VAT_non_Lawyers_retraint.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (VAT_non_Lawyers_retraint.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nInterim order passed that non-advocates cannot appear before VAT authorities or advertise services relating to filing of returns\/ arguing before VAT authorities<\/strong>  <\/p>\n<p>The Tax Lawyers Association filed a Writ Petition claiming that Rule 73 read with Rule 79(2)(f) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules 2008 which permits outsiders to practice in the field of Law before the VAT Authorities under the VAT Act is ultra vires section 33 of the Advocates Act 1961 which provides that only Advocates are entitled to practice before any Court or authority. It was claimed that under the garb of the impugned Rule, outsiders have been permitted to appear before the authorities under the VAT Act to practice in the field of Law. Attention was drawn to certain leaflets which seem to be advertisement by certain persons who are not registered Advocates inviting assesses with regard to filing of return on payment of Rs.400 and odd. It was submitted that under the garb of said Rule, persons who are not skilled lawyer or have no knowledge in the field of Law, are appearing before the authority under the VAT Act, are spoiling the academic atmosphere of the profession. HELD by the Court admitting the Petition: <\/p>\n<blockquote><p>As an interim measure, we direct the respondents that no person whosoever, may be permitted to advertise in the Newspaper or any leaflet, inviting assesses for the purpose of filing of return or arguing before the authority under the VAT Act. Any person, who is not a registered advocate, shall not be permitted to appear before the Authority under the VAT Act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><strong><br \/>\nInterim order passed that non-advocates cannot appear before VAT authorities or advertise services regarding filing of returns\/ arguing<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>As an interim measure, we direct the respondents that no person whosoever, may be permitted to advertise in the Newspaper or any leaflet, inviting assesses for the purpose of filing of return or arguing before the authority under the VAT Act. Any person, who is not a registered advocate, shall not be permitted to appear before the Authority under the VAT Act<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/tax-lawyers-association-vs-state-of-u-p-allahabad-high-court\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","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":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8258","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\/8258","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=8258"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8258\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8258"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8258"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8258"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}