The Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of INDIA vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that prayers 1, 2, and 3 of the writ petition no longer survived for consideration. Prayer 1 was rendered infructuous because the arrangement between the ninth respondent and ICTPI for providing curriculum had been terminated, and applicable statutes already governed the qualifications for Tax Practitioners. Prayers 2 and 3 were also deemed moot due to the undertakings provided by ICTPI, which included prominently displaying disclaimers on its website and course materials, clarifying its non-affiliation with ICAI and its inability to issue licenses for practicing as Income Tax Practitioner, GST Practitioner, or Customs Broker. Regarding prayer 4, the Court noted the petitioner's submission of a physical application (Form RD-1) and payment. The Court directed Respondent No. 5 to consider this physical application. Furthermore, the Court observed a discrimination in the online application process, where only companies could file online, while non-companies had to submit physical forms. The Court directed Respondent No. 5 to upgrade its portal within six weeks to allow non-companies and individuals to file applications online, similar to companies. A compliance report was ordered to be filed by January 30, 2025. The Court also directed that the petitioner and ICTPI appear before Respondent No. 5 on January 29, 2025, for the disposal of the application, with Respondent No. 5 to decide within eight weeks thereafter.

Facts

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), the petitioner, filed a writ petition seeking directions against various government bodies and the Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India (ICTPI), respondent No. 6. The petitioner alleged that ICTPI was offering courses and issuing qualifications that infringed upon the statutory domain of the ICAI and sought to restrain ICTPI from offering courses like 'Post Graduate Diploma in Taxation' and issuing licenses for 'GST Practitioner'. During the proceedings, ICTPI filed an affidavit undertaking to publish disclaimers on its website and in its course materials, stating it is not affiliated with ICAI and does not issue licenses to practice as a GST Practitioner or similar roles. The petitioner, after reviewing these undertakings, had no further objections regarding these specific points. However, a separate issue arose concerning the submission of an application by the petitioner to Respondent No. 5 (Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs) for which a physical form was required, while companies could submit online.

Key Issues

1. Whether Respondent No. 3 (Ministry of Finance Department of Financial Services) should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation and take action against Respondent No. 6, and whether Respondent No. 4 (University Grants Commission) should take action to curtail Respondent No. 6's courses and license issuances? - Petitioner's argument: ICTPI's actions were encroaching on the statutory rights and domain of ICAI, necessitating intervention by the authorities. - Revenue/State's argument: Not recorded. 2. Whether Respondent No. 5 (Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs) should consider the petitioner's application and take action against Respondent No. 6 in a time-bound manner? - Petitioner's argument: The process for submission of applications to Respondent No. 5 was discriminatory, requiring physical submission for non-companies while allowing online submission for companies. - Revenue/State's argument: The MCA 21 portal was designed for registered companies, and a physical form was the only method for non-companies to apply. However, they agreed to upgrade the portal to accommodate non-company applications.