HINDU NATIONAL BOOT HOUSE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time of hearing this revision petition, a preliminary objection was raised by Shri Daluram Sharma, Government Advocate that Shri V. T. Bijlani appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not a registered sales tax practitioner within the meaning of rule 59 read with rule 60 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules and as such he is not entitled to practise. He elaborated his argument by saying that rule 59 lays down under sub-rule 1 of 59 and persons must be registered as Sales Tax Practitioner in the form prescribed, and unless he is registered, he cannot appear before any Sales Tax Authority in any proceedings under the Act.

(2.) THE reply of Bijlani was that all that Rules 59 sub-rule 3 requires is that a bales Tax Practitioner, who desires to be registered can get registered, otherwise any person holding the qualification prescribed under rule 59 is entitled to appear and practise before the Sales Tax Authorities constituted under the Act without any registration. He is registered Income - tax practitioner and as such he is entitl-ed to practise. He is not appearing as a friend or a relation of the dealer without charging any remuneration.