TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 547
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... since 1988 and holding valid licenses. The grievance of the Writ Petitioners is that since January, 2015, the Second and Third Respondents are illegally demanding the Petitioners to deposit Rs. 15/- for every bundle of currency, i.e., bundle containing 100 notes by remitting in the name of account as "Commission Account", for which no receipts or payment challans are issued. The First Respondent viz., the Director, Treasuries and Accounts Department, Chennai vide letter dated 28.03.2016 addressed the Second Respondent viz., the General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai to waive off the cash handling charges collected from the stamp vendors, as the Government is paying separately to the banks. The Petitioners are forced to pay Rs. 150 /- to Rs. 200/- as cash handling charges, which have severe financial impact on the meager commission earned every day. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners/ Stamp Vendors submits that the Second and Third Respondents /State Bank of India, by misinterpreting the Master Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India, collecting cash handling charges from the Petitioners, who all are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mps from Treasuries by remitting money into State Government Accounts and not for inidividual current /savings Bank Accounts, it is requested that this cash handling charges should be waived off for this remittance. Further, it is pointed out that, for every Government transaction charges are beind paid separately to the banks by the Government and therefore, the cash handling charges collected from stamp vendors may fully be waived off. The Stamp Vendors may also be exempted from the cash handling charges.'' In respect of the letter sent by the Director /Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, Government of Tamil Nadu, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Second and Third Respondents /State Bank of India contended that those circulars are not binding on the State Bank of India. The Director /Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts has no authority to prevent the State Bank of India from collecting any cash handling charges and therefore, the said clarificatory letter cannot be relied upon for the purpose of considering the request of the Petitioners for non-collection of cash handling charges. 10. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Second and Third Respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Circular, no cash handling charges have been explicitly provided for Government receipts which shows that collection of cash handling charges for deposit of cash into Government Account through challans has not at all been permitted by the State Bank of India itself. It is therefore submitted that such cash handling charges have been collected by mistake by misinterpretation of the Circular of the Head Office of the State Bank of India and such collection being made by the Respondent Bank herein is without any authority. In this regard, it is pertinent to point that, since the Third Respondent Bank itself is not clear about the permissibility of collecting cash handling charges from the petitioner, it has sought for a clarification from the AGM, SBI, Government, Banking Unit, Local Head Office, Chennai as to whether cash handling charges is applicable for stamp vendors since they are remitting money into State Government Account and not for their individual current /Savings Bank Account. The nature of the reply received is not known and the Second and Third Respondents shall be directed to produce the same before this Hon'ble Court if any reply was received. It is therefore ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Circular of the Head Office of the State Bank of India and such collection being made by the Respondent Bank herein is without any authority. 15. The Fourth Respondent has further stated that the Third Respondent itself is not clear about the permissibility of collecting cash handling charges from the Petitioners, the clarifications sought for from the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Government, Banking unit, Local Head Office, Chennai has also not been properly replied and the Government has stated that there is no reply for such clarification from the Bank. 16. Under these circumstances, such collection of cash handling charges from the Stamp Vendors by the Third Respondent /Bank, while depositing money into Government Account through Treasury Challans is impermissible. 17. Perusal of the Master Circulars relied on by the Second and Third Respondents /State Bank of India dated 01.07.2014 and 01.04.2021 reveals that the Second and Third Respondents are unable to establish that there is a direction / instruction / permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India to collect such cash handling charges on Government transactions. In the absence of any such specific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their counsel. 22. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State Bank of India filed the additional affidavits of the aforesaid officials, regretting the statement made in the original counter affidavit. 23. The 2nd respondent, General Manager of State Bank of India, has to sensitize the officials in this regard to develop good conduct with the customers and the citizens, who all are approaching the Bank for transactions. These employees/officials must be reminded off that, from and out of the transactions through the customers and citizens, the salary to these employees are paid. Thus, they are expected to maintain good conduct always and honour the rights of the persons approaching the Bank. 24. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that at the time of admitting the present Writ Petitions, interim orders were passed by this Court not to collect cash handling charges from the stamp vendors. However, such cash handling charges were collected. 25. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Second and Third Respondents contended that in the event of producing any such proof, the bank will be in a position to respon....