CAAS Urges Gujarat Industries Commissioner to End Mandatory One-Page CA Certificates, Seeks State-Wide Clarification

The Chartered Accountants Association, Surat (CAAS) has submitted a representation to the Industries Commissioner, Government of Gujarat, demanding immediate intervention against the continued insistence by several District Industries Centres (DICs) on one-page Chartered Accountant certificates that do not permit inclusion of professional safeguard clauses prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI).

According to CAAS, the issue is not merely procedural or related to formatting. The association argued that certificates issued by Chartered Accountants are professional attestations governed by ICAI’s Guidance Note on Reports or Certificates for Special Purposes (Revised 2016), which requires disclosure of the subject matter, applicable criteria, responsibilities of management and practitioner, scope of work performed, limitations, basis of conclusion, and other essential reporting elements. CAAS contended that forcing CAs to issue bare one-page certificates without these disclosures exposes them to professional and disciplinary risks.

The representation notes that while officials at the Surat DIC have shown some understanding of the issue and informally accepted ICAI-compliant certifications, similar flexibility is reportedly absent in many other districts. As a result, applicants are often caught between departmental expectations and the professional obligations of their Chartered Accountants.

CAAS emphasized that Government departments are entitled to prescribe the information required for subsidy and incentive schemes, but cannot compel Chartered Accountants to omit disclosures mandated by their statutory regulator. The association argued that departmental formats may specify data requirements, but cannot override ICAI’s professional framework established under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.

The association further stated that inclusion of scope, limitation, responsibility, reliance, and restriction-on-use paragraphs causes no prejudice to the Department. Instead, such disclosures improve transparency, clarify the extent of verification undertaken, and reduce the possibility of future disputes or misunderstandings regarding the level of assurance provided by the certifying professional.

Highlighting growing friction between applicants, consultants, and CAs, CAAS warned that continued insistence on rigid formats is creating uncertainty and inconsistency across the State. It also informed the Industries Commissioner that the matter is being brought to the attention of ICAI’s Ethical Standards Board and that instances of non-compliant certifications may be examined from a disciplinary perspective.

CAAS has demanded a State-wide circular directing all DIC offices to accept ICAI-compliant certificates, clarifying that departmental formats are only indicative of information requirements and not a prohibition on professional safeguard clauses. It has also sought consultation with ICAI and CAAS representatives for rationalising CA certification formats used under various subsidy schemes.

Concluding its representation, CAAS stated that it remains willing to work with the Government in developing formats that satisfy both departmental information requirements and professional standards, while stressing that “a certificate without its essential safeguards is not a simplified certificate it is a defective certificate.”