NATARAJ T S Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners who are either Tax advocates or IT practitioners (IT Ps) or assessees under the IT Act, 1961 (as the case may be) have challenged the constitutional validity of S. 44AB of the Act as introduced by Finance Act, 1984. On the very questions raised in these petitions, there is no authoritative ruling of the Supreme Court or this Court. The questions raised in these cases will affect a large number of Tax Advocates, IT practitioners and assesees in the country itself. IN these circumstances, I am of the opinion that these are fit cases to be heard and decided by a Division Bench of this Court. IN exercise of powers conferred under S. 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, I refer these cases to a Division Bench for disposal. ORDER OF DIVISION BENCH PUTTASWAMY, J. : On a reference made by one of us, (Puttaswamy, J.) these cases were posted before us for disposal.

(2.) AS the petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the constitutional validity of S. 44AB of the IT Act of 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) (`the Act'), we propose to dispose of these petitions by this order.

(3.) 1. The ITPs with whom we are primarily concerned, have asserted, that they have all the qualifications and experience possessed by CAs and the right conferred on CAs is discriminatory, arbitrary, irrational and is not in the general public interest at all. They have asserted that this arbitrary provision was earlier dropped on a very detailed examination of all the relevant criteria including considerations such as the largeness of their number in the country; the satisfactory service rendered by them to the public and the very limited number of CAs available in the country and the like. The petitioners--the first group of them--assert that their fundamental right to practice their profession is violated there being no corresponding advantage to any section of the public. 5.2. The tax payers, supporting the ITPs have urged that S. 44AB unreasonably compels them to have their accounts audited by CAs which is satisfactorily attended to by their ITPs without any complaint by the IT authorities. They have highlighted the inconveniences, hardships and difficulties they are exposed to by the exclusive privilege conferred on the CAs, who may dictate their own terms against them.