TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANDRA MENON P.R. , J. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. The basic issue involved in both these writ petitions relates to the liability to satisfy the additional court fee to an extent of 0.5 per cent of the disputed amount, payable to the legal benefit fund , to have entertained the application preferred by the petitioner under sub-section (3) or (5) of section 45A, against the order imposing penalty under section 45A(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, when the relevant notification issued in this regard stipulates payment of such additional court fee only in respect of appeals/revisions . The sequence of events as narrated in both the writ petitions shows that, the petitioner was imposed with penalty under section 45A(1) of the KGST Act, in respect of the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, fixing a total liability of nearly 1.36 crores. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner preferred an application before the second respondent, as provided under sub-section (3) of section 45A, seeking for immediate interference, which was refused to be entertained for not having satisfied the additional court fee. This made the petitioner to approach this court, by fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernment in exercise of the power under sub-section (1) to section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. The said notification is extracted hereunder, for the purpose of convenience of reference: Notification S.R.O. No. 226/2002 (published in Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No. 420 dated April 5, 2002). In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, the Government of Kerala hereby authorise the levy by the Tribunal and appellate authorities constituted by or under any special or local law, other than civil and criminal courts of additional court fee in respect of each appeal or revision at the rate of 0.5 per cent of the amount involved in the dispute in cases where it is capable of valuation and in other cases at the rate of rupees fifty in each such case. The amount so collected shall be credited to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund constituted under sub-section (2) of section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. Even though, validity of the said notification was subjected to challenge by some of the aggrieved persons before this court, it was upheld as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also in Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Ltd. [2007] 8 SCC 705 (paragraph 88 onwards). The learned Government Pleader further submits that the conclusion made by the learned single judge of this court in the last paragraph of the decision reported in A. P. Ismail (Anwar Traders) v. State of Kerala [2006] 144 STC 476; [2005] 3 KLT 1052, (serial No. iii) is not correct or sustainable, fixing the scope and extent of the notification in respect of the assessment years commencing only from April, 2002 and that the aggrieved party, i.e., trustee committee of the legal benefit fund has already preferred an appeal before this court as W.A. No. 901 of 2010, which has been admitted and is pending along with other connected matters. It is also contended that the petitioner cannot press any relief as now projected, mainly for the reason that, neither the State of Kerala nor the trustee committee of the legal benefit fund, is a party to these writ petitions. Coming to the challenge raised from the part of the petitioner as to the scope of the notification, the mandate under the enabling provisions, i.e., sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 45A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons (3) and (5) of section 45A is application , it cannot be said that, it is not with reference to any appeal/ revision and hence no additional court fee shall be levied for entertaining the proceedings under the above provisions. This is also in view of the settled rules of interpretation, so as to give effect to the statute as made clear by the apex court in the decision cited supra. Coming to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the observations made by a single judge of this court in the concluding paragraph of the decision reported in A.P. Ismail (Anwar Traders) v. State of Kerala [2006] 144 STC 476; [2005] 3 KLT 1052, it is true that, it has been observed under the head Conclusions as follows (page 489 in 144 STC): (iii) Such fee is payable only on appeals/revisions arising from assessment orders issued in relation to and from the assessment year in which the said notification was issued on April, 5 2002 (emphasis(1) supplied). In view of the said observation, it is contended that such additional court fee can be realized only in respect of the assessment orders and no such additional court fee is payable by the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
