Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010187552025 2025:GAU- AS:11972-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2800/2025 M/S SAI NATH TRADERS KABAITARY, JOGIGHOPA, BONGAIGAON, ASSAM 783382, A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES, MR. SANJAY KUMAR SARKAR. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FINANCE DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM 781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES KAR BHAWAN DISPUR ASSAM 781006 3:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF TAXES KAR BHAWAN DISPUR ASSAM 781006 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXES DENTRAL VAT AUDIT TEAM KAR BHAWAN DISPUR ASSAM 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : PETITIONER IN PERSON, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE DEPTT., MR. B GOGOI Page No.# 2/6 Linked Case : CAVT/0/0 M/S SAI NATH TRADERS KABAITARY JOGIGHOPA BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783382 A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. SANJAY KUMAR SARKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES KAR BHAWAN DISPUR ASSAM 781006 3:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF TAXES KAR BHAWAN DISPUR ASSAM 781006 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXES CENTRAL VAT AUDIT TEAM KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781006 ------------ Advocate for : SANJAY KUMAR SARKAR Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 3/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 03.09.2025 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sarkar appearing on behalf of the applicant firm M/s Sai Nath Traders, whose sole proprietor is Mr. Sanjay Kumar. Also heard Mr. B Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam for the respondents. 2. The present application is for granting leave to Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sarkar, to appear and make submissions as the authorized representative of M/s Sai Nath Traders and its sole proprietor, Mr. Sanjay Kumar. 3. The revision petition which has been filed under Section 151 of the CPC read with Article 227 of the Construction has put to challenge the impugned final order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Additional Commissioner of Taxes). The application has been made on the ground that the sole proprietor, Mr. Sanjay Kumar of the applicant is suffering from serious critical ailments including angioplasty and continues to undergo periodical medical treatment. Due to his fragile health and acute financial hardship, the sole proprietor is unable to engage a legal counsel and has thus authorized the applicant to file and plead the revision application before this Court. 4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sarkar appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that in terms of Order-III Rule 1 and Rule 2 (a) of the CPC, he can appear on behalf of the applicant, even though he is not an advocate in terms of the Advocates Act, 1961. He also submits that in terms of Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961, this Court can permit him to appear on behalf of the applicant. 5. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of T.C. Mathai & Anr. -Vs- The District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala reported in 1999 (3) SCC 614. Page No.# 4/6 6. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sarkar has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harishankar Rastogi -Vs.- Girdhari Sharma and Anr. reported in 1978 (2) SCC 165, wherein it has been held that though a non-advocate has no right of audience, the Court has inherent jurisdiction to permit such appearance in the interest of justice. 7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sarkar appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the sole proprietor is undergoing angioplasty and is medically unfit to appear in the case. Further, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sarkar has constantly represented the applicant before the Commercial Tax Department since 2020, as such, he is fully conversant with the facts of the case. He accordingly prays that he sould be allowed to represent the applicant/sole proprietor. 8. Mr. B Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General submits that a reading of Sections 29 and 33 of the Advocates Act, 1961, shows that only advocates can practice law and the person who is not an advocate cannot be allowed to practice. However, it is up to a person who is a party to a proceeding to get himself represented by a non-advocate in a particular case as provided under Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961, provided that permission is granted by the Court in the interest of justice, after considering the variety of factors for such non-professional representation. In this regard, he has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nibaran Bora -Vs- Union of India & Ors. reported in 1991 (1) GLR 411. Mr. B Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General further submits that this application should be rejected. 9. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 10. The application for allowing Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sarkar to appear on behalf of the applicant has been made to challenge the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, CVAT dated 30.03.2024, by which an amount of Rs. Page No.# 5/6 3,21,43,645 was payable as audit turn over discrepancy. 11. In the case of M/s Shankar Finance & Investments -Vs- State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 422, the Supreme Court has held that a proprietary concern has no separate legal existence, distinct from its proprietor. 12. Order III Rule 1 of the CPC, provides for appearance in Court by recognized agents and pleaders. 13. In the case of Harishankar Rastogi (supra), the Supreme Court has held that – “A private person who is not an Advocate, has no right to barge into Court and claim to argue for a party. He must get the prior permission of the Court for which the motion must come from the party himself”. 14. It is worthwhile to note that the instant application seeking leave to appear on behalf of the revision petitioner in the connected revision petition is filed by the applicant represented by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sarkar himself. However, the affidavit to the application, i.e., I.A. (Civil) No. 2800/2025 has been made by Sri. Sanjay Kumar Sarkar and not by the revision petitioner. Hence, on this score alone, the instant prayer as per the decision of the Apex Court in Harishankar Rastogi (supra) can be rejected. 15. That apart, considering the fact that Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sarkar is a businessman and not a lawyer, who has been given the power of attorney only because the sole proprietor of the applicant firm is a sick person, we do not find any reason to allow Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sarkar to represent M/s Sai Nath Traders. Further, advocates are only recognized class of persons entitled to practice law in all Courts and in terms of Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961, permission of the Court is required to allow any non-advocate to appear before it. 16. In the present case, we see no reasonable grounds to allow Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sarkar to appear on behalf of M/s Sai Nath Traders, only because the sole proprietor is Page No.# 6/6 medically unfit. The same does not bar the applicant to engage any advocate to represent M/s Sai Nath Traders and its sole proprietor before this Court. 17. For the reasons stated herein above, this Interlocutory Application, stands dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant