ABHYANKAR, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose off both these applications as they raise common questions regarding powers of the State Government in prescribing a particular form for appearance of sales tax practitioners and others before sales tax authority and the amount of fees required to be paid on the document authorising such appearance.
(2.) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 1102 of 1965 is at the instance of Shri L. M. Mahurkar, who is a sales tax practitioner. He appeared before the first respondent, i.e., Sales Tax Officer, Circle No. 2, Nagpur, in two assessment cases of his client and filed two powers -of -attorney, of which document No. 2 at page 10 of the paper -book is a specimen. He had affixed a court -fee stamp of Rs. 2 on each of these powers -of -attorney as provided by the Bombay Court -fees Act. The first respondent recorded in his order sheet of 8th November, 1965, that the powers -of -attorney filed by the petitioner were not in the prescribed form and directed the petitioner to file powers -of -attorney as prescribed in form No. 43 -A and rule 66 -a of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959. He also directed that the said authorisations should bear a general stamp of Rs. 3.30 as provided by the Bombay Stamp Act. In view of these defects, which according to the first respondent had to be rectified, he did not accept the petitioner's power -of -attorney filed in the case. An order to that effect was formally passed by the first respondent on 8th November, 1965. The petitioner in this petition challenges the legality of this order. Special Civil Application No. 1131 of 1965 is at the instance of Shri Gokulprasad Agarwal, who is an advocate of this court. He is enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961. This petitioner appeared before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax who is impleaded as the first respondent in this petition, the client having empowered him to appear and plead on his behalf and a vakalatnama was filed before that authority. On this vakalatnama he affixed a court -fee stamp of Rs. 2. The first respondent in this case also required the petitioner to file an authority in Form No. 43 -A as prescribed in the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, and wanted the petitioner to file that authority bearing a general stamp of Rs. 3.30 as provided in the Stamp Act.
(3.) CORRESPONDENCE ensured between the petitioner and the authority and ultimately by a letter dated 1st October, 1965, the first respondent informed the petitioner that he must company with the directions already given. He was also performed that unless the petitioner compiled with the said directions the petitioner would not be allowed to appear, plead and act on behalf of his client. The petitioner also, therefore, challenges these orders and demand of general non -judicial stamp to be affixed on the authorisation.;