PRAVIN NATVARLAL MODH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short issue involved in this petition was set out while issuing notice in the petition. The court had recorded the gist of the controversy involved in the petition. The order dated 03.05.2016 reads as under:

(2.) Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Issue Notice returnable on 9th June, 2016. By way of adinterim relief, the respondent is restrained from proceeding further pursuant to the impugned show cause notice dated April, 2016 (Annexure D to the petition).

(3.) Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior advocate appearing with Mr. Dhaval Shah, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner submitted that once having been enrolled with the Bar Council of Gujarat, the certificate issued by the Commissioner registering him as a Sales Tax Practitioner stood superseded, since on acquiring a certificate of enrolment with the Bar Council of Gujarat, he was attending the proceedings under the VAT Act as a legal practitioner as envisaged under clause (b) of sub-section 1 of Sec. 81 of the Act. According to Mr. Joshi, under sub-section (2) of Sec. 81 of the Act, the Commissioner is empowered to disqualify a legal practitioner who is found guilty of misconduct in connection with any proceedings under the Act by an authority empowered to take disciplinary action against the members of the profession to which he belongs. In other words, it is only the Bar Council of Gujarat which could have taken disciplinary action and not the Commissioner.