SUNIL SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a graduate in Commerce from the Magadh University. He is desirous of practising before the estate duty authorities. On July 24, 1981, the petitioner made an application for enrolment as Income-tax authorised representative before the Commissioner of Income-tax. This was allowed. Thus the petitioner has been practising as Income-tax authorised representative before the Income-tax authorities. On July 1, 1983, the petitioner received a letter dated June 25, 1983, stating that he was not entitled to appear before the Estate Duty authorities, a copy of which letter is annex. 2 to this writ application. In this writ application the petitioner, therefore, prays that this annexure be quashed and the authorities be directed to permit the petitioner to appear before the E.D. authorities.

(2.) SECTION 83 of the E.D. Act states, inter alia, that any person accountable for estate duty may be represented before the authority concerned by a person having such qualifications as may be prescribed. Rule 41 of the E.D. Rules states qualifications of certain persons to appear as authorised representatives. It would be necessary to read the aforesaid rule which is as follows: