Chandrasekaran Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
Madras HC order directing the department to come with proper circular to the assessee in respect of engagement of a qualified consultant
Brief facts:
The petitioner submits that due to the mistake on the part of the consultant, they have filed an irrelevant reply. Moreover, the petitioner’s account has been freezed by the second respondent, which resulted in standstill of petitioner’s company. Further, it affected the revenue of petitioner’s company and half a dozen workers, who was working there. Now, the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the first respondent. Hence, she requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the first respondent by setting aside the impugned order.
Observations by the Court:
The respondent department is directed to issue note/circular to the assessees to engage consultants and get advice from qualified consultants. Otherwise, the assessees file petitions directly through employees or relatives. The ill advice given by the unqualified consultant would generally be on account of the work burden in which they are used to advise very many clients. As and when the assessee approaches these type of consultants, in order to ensure that the assessee does not go out of their hands, the unqualified consultants violate Acts. These are all aspects that would come across before the notice of this Court, while handling various cases. Therefore, the department is directed to come with proper circular to the assessee in respect of engagement of a qualified consultant. Such kind of ill-advice leads to the fact that the clients are not in a position to appear before the Officers concerned with suitable reply supported by documents, which is purely on the negligence on the part of the consultant.
