TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2009. The dispute between the parties has arisen on account of amended Regulations effective from 1.10.2006 introducing Schedule IIIA into the Regulations. For stock brokers the measure of fee under Schedule III was "turnover of the previous year" on yearly basis and the same has been replaced by concept of monthly fee on the basis of monthly turnover. The dispute is whether the latter would come into effect immediately from the date Schedule IIIA becomes applicable to a stock-broker or the earlier measure of fee on yearly basis would continue for a limited period till fee in accordance with Schedule III and the principle of turnover of the whole year is realized not only as per the previous year's turnover but for the entire up to date tur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Exchange Board of India (Stock-brokers and sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992 (for short the Regulations) as amended from time to time including Schedule III and IIIA, it is not necessary to go into the facts. It is sufficient to notice that the appellant is a stock-broker trading, inter alia, as a member of the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited since 29.1.2004. It is not in dispute that the appellant and stock-brokers in general are regulated under the provisions of the Act and for conducting their trade or business they are required to be registered with SEBI under the Regulations. Such registration is mandatory in terms of Section 12 of the Act whereas Regulation 10 requires that for obtaining certificate of registration from SEBI, every applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereas he was liable to pay further Rs. 18,13,995/- even for the period from October 2006 to March 2007 regardless of the fact that from October 2006, as per Schedule IIIA he was liable to pay and had paid the registration fee on monthly basis on monthly turnover. Not only this, SEBI claimed further amount of Rs. 21,60,600/- for the year 2007-08 on the ground that no amount of turnover reached by the appellant till he opted to come under Schedule IIIA should escape from levy of registration fee. Such demands by the SEBI were regardless of the fact that the appellant, without any dispute came to be governed by Schedule IIIA from 1.10.2006 and he paid Registration Fee in accordance with Schedule IIIA for the remaining part of 2006-07, i.e, fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as a measure of the levy which is a fee for regulating the activities of the securities market and for registration of the brokers and other intermediaries in the said market. Therefore, it is futile to contend that such levy would be either a tax or a fee on the turnover." 9. The main contention of Mr. C.U. Singh to support the impugned judgment of the SAT is based upon clause 1(a) & (b) of Schedule III. According to him that clause is the charging provision which requires taking note of annual turnover during any financial year for levy of registration fee for each financial year. In reply Mr. Divan has contended that the charging provision is in fact Regulation 10 which requires every applicant for a certificate of registration to pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch accrued before this Schedule became applicable to him and such fees shall be paid as per the relevant provisions of Schedule III as if they had not ceased to be applicable to him." The aforesaid clause is clarificatory in nature. It clarifies that the liability to pay fees as per Schedule III which has already accrued and got fastened to a stock-broker before the Schedule IIIA became applicable, would remain payable as per the provisions of Schedule III even after they cease to be effective for subsequent period. 12. This clause in our view does not affect the enforceability of Schedule IIIA from the date it became applicable to the appellant on account of option permitted by the relevant provisions. After Schedule IIIA became applica....