TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April, 2005 to February, 2006. The orders are marked as exhibits P1 to P11. According to the petitioner the penalty orders were issued in violation of the procedure under section 67 of the Act, for want of notice. Aggrieved by exhibits P1 to P11 petitioner has filed revision petitions and also stay petitions which are marked as exhibits P14 to P35 and the same are pending before the second respondent. In the meanwhile as per exhibit P36 recovery steps were initiated and hence the writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission the learned single Judge felt that since there is challenge on 11 penalty orders, the cause of action being multifarious, the court fee should be paid in respect of each cause of action as held by this court in Writ Appeal No. 619 of 1989 and thereafter in an unregistered writ petition by another division Bench in the order dated November 6, 1989 wherein the view taken was that when different proceedings are challenged in one writ petition, the petitioner is bound to pay separate court fee in respect of each of the proceedings. In both cases proceedings under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 were under challenge. The only difference is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atters in fixing the court fee. The Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Act 10 of 1960) was enacted to amend and consolidate the law relating to court fees and valuation of suits in the State of Kerala. As per section 21 the fee payable under this Act shall be determined or computed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, (Chapter IV), Chapter VI, Chapter IX and Schedules I and II. Article 11 alone deals with the court fee in respect of the Original Petitions in the High Court. Under article 11(l), Original Petitions not otherwise provided for when filed in the High Court, the court fee payable is Rs. 100 per petitioner. Prior to December 5, 1990 it was only Rs. 25 and in between till 2003 there was no fees. There was no stipulation regarding the fee payable by each petitioner. Article 11(r) of Schedule II of the Act prior to its omission with effect from December 5, 1990 read as follows: Petition to the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution for a writ other than the writ of habeas corpus or a petition under article 227 of the Constitution. Twenty five rupees. Though the State intended to reintroduce the provision of court fee for wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of writ petitions in the High Court, the court fee payable is only Rs. 100 per petitioner. The Kerala High Court Act, 1958 was enacted to make provision regulating the business and exercise of the powers of the High Court of the State of Kerala. Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 were framed in exercise of the powers conferred under article 225 of the Constitution of India, section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the High Court. Rule 146 deals with the contents of an original petition which reads as follows: 146. Contents of the applications. Every application shall set out the provision of law under which it is made, the name and description of the petitioner and the respondent, a clear and concise statement of facts, the grounds on which the relief is sought and shall be signed by petitioner and by his Advocate, if he has appointed one, as in form No. 10: Provided that no petition shall be entertained by the Registry unless it contains a statement as to whether the petitioner had filed any petition seeking similar reliefs in respect of the same subjectmatter earlier and if so, the result thereof. Rule 147A permits more than one petitioner t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon a court under rule 6 of order II of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908). (4) The provisions of this section shall apply mutatis mutandis to memoranda of appeals, applications, petitions and written statements. Explanation. For the purpose of this section, a suit for possession of immovable property and for mesne profits shall be deemed to be based on the same cause of action. At the outset it has to be noted that the provision deals with only suits and not original petitions in the High Court. The expression petition under section 6(4) is intended to provide for petitions filed in the suit and not an original petition. The learned Government Pleader invited our attention to the interpretation given to the section under the provisions of the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. Section 6 herein is identically worded. A learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in R. R. Sethupathi v. State of Madras AIR 1957 Mad 570, observed that the petitioner referred to in section 6(4) would include writ petitions also. We are afraid the interpretation does not reflect the correct position in law. It has to be noted that the court fee payab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.. The respondent is (give description and address) 3.*[Here set out the facts]. 4.. (Here set out the grounds for relief) 5.. For the reasons set out above and in the affidavit filed herewith the petitioner prays that (set out the reliefs sought)** [including the interim reliefs]. (Sd) Petitioner. Date...... (Sd) Advocate for petitioner. The form also indicates that even if there are several reliefs, there need only be one writ petition in case the reliefs arise out of the same set of facts and rest on same set of grounds. One of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition is a direction to the second respondent to dispose of exhibits P14 to P24 revision petitions filed against exhibits P1 to P11 orders of penalty. The main ground in the writ petition is that the impugned orders have been passed without notice to the petitioner, in violation of the procedure prescribed under section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. According to the petitioner, as soon as he received notice he has taken steps under section 22 of the Act and hence he is not liable to be visited with any penalty. Since appreciation of facts is also involved in the case it is only a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
