Facts of the Case
A complaint was filed by CA Mahesh Kumar Vasantlal
Dave, Mumbai, against CA Shankar Choudhary, Navi Mumbai. The complainant’s
firm was the immediate previous GST Auditor of M/s VEMB Lifestyle
Private Limited and M/s ONO Uniforms Private Limited.
The Respondent was appointed as GST auditor of M/s
VEMB Lifestyle Private Limited for FY 2018–19 and M/s ONO Uniforms Private
Limited (now M/s ONO Lifestyle Limited) for FY 2019–20. It was alleged that
the Respondent accepted these GST audit assignments without first
communicating in writing with the complainant or the complainant’s firm,
who were the retiring auditors.
It was further stated that substantial professional
fees of the complainant were pending with the management of the companies at
the time the Respondent accepted the audit assignments.
Issues Involved
Whether the Respondent accepted GST audit assignments
previously held by another Chartered Accountant without prior written
communication, and whether such conduct amounted to Professional Misconduct
under Item (8) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants
Act, 1949.
Complainant’s Arguments
The complainant contended that the Respondent failed
to comply with the mandatory requirement of prior written communication before
accepting the GST audit. It was argued that such communication is essential to
uphold professional discipline and collegiality, particularly when professional
fees of the previous auditor remain unpaid.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Respondent submitted that he had sent letters
dated 19 June 2020 and 07 January 2021 to the complainant seeking
no-objection for accepting the GST audit assignments, but due to the COVID-19
lockdown he could not send the letters by registered post. He claimed that the
letters were sent through courier but admitted that he could not produce any
proof of delivery.
The Respondent further relied on relaxations granted
by ICAI during the pandemic period regarding modes of communication with
retiring auditors.
Court / Authority Order and Findings
The Board of Discipline examined the documents on
record, submissions of the parties, and the provisions of Item (8) of Part I
of the First Schedule along with the Code of Ethics, 2009 and 2020.
The Board reiterated that there are two mandatory requirements under
Item (8):
(i) communication must be prior to acceptance of the appointment, and
(ii) such communication must be in writing with positive evidence of
delivery.
The Board noted that although pandemic-related
relaxations permitted communication through email, the Respondent categorically
admitted during the hearing that he did not send any email to the
complainant prior to accepting the appointment. The Respondent also failed to
produce any positive evidence of delivery of letters allegedly sent through
courier.
The Board observed that the GST audit reports for the
concerned companies were signed by the Respondent on 31 December 2020
and 31 March 2021, confirming that the acceptance of appointment had
already taken place without compliance with the mandatory requirement.
Accordingly, the Board held that the Respondent failed to establish compliance
with Item (8) of Part I of the First Schedule.
Important Clarification
The Board clarified that mere dispatch of a letter
without proof of delivery is insufficient. An incoming auditor must retain
positive evidence that prior written communication was delivered to the
retiring auditor before acceptance of the assignment. Pandemic relaxations do
not dispense with the requirement of acknowledgment of communication.
Final Outcome
The ICAI Board of Discipline held CA Shankar
Choudhary (M. No. 064045) guilty of Professional Misconduct under Item
(8) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949
read with Section 22. In exercise of powers under Section 21A(3)
of the Act, by order dated 11 December 2023, the Board imposed a
monetary penalty of ₹25,000 (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) on the
Respondent.
Disclaimer
This content is
shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers
should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not
intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and
the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content.
The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment