2006 (12) TMI 463 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Court fee payable in a writ petition challenging multiple orders on the same set of facts and grounds.
2. Whether separate court fees should be paid for each distinct proceeding challenged in one writ petition.
3. Interpretation of Section 6 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act regarding multifarious suits.
4. Applicability of Article 11(l) and Article 11(t) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
5. Relevance of prior judgments and amendments to the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
6. Directions for the disposal of revision petitions and stay petitions filed by the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Court Fee Payable in a Writ Petition Challenging Multiple Orders:
The primary issue is determining the court fee to be paid in a writ petition that challenges several orders based on the same set of facts and grounds. The petitioner, an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, challenged penalty orders for failing to file monthly returns due to the stoppage of production. The penalty orders were issued without notice, violating Section 67 of the Act.

2. Separate Court Fees for Each Distinct Proceeding:
The learned single Judge opined that since the petitioner challenged 11 penalty orders, each representing a distinct cause of action, separate court fees should be paid for each proceeding. This view was supported by previous decisions where separate assessment orders for each year were challenged under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

3. Interpretation of Section 6 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act:
Section 6 addresses multifarious suits where separate and distinct reliefs are sought based on different causes of action. The learned Special Government Pleader argued that court fees should be paid for each cause of action in the original petition. However, the court clarified that Section 6 pertains to suits and not original petitions in the High Court. The expression "petition" in Section 6(4) refers to petitions filed in suits, not original petitions. The court fee in a writ petition is computed based on the number of petitioners, not the causes of action.

4. Applicability of Article 11(l) and Article 11(t):
Article 11(l) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act stipulates a court fee of Rs. 100 per petitioner for original petitions filed in the High Court. Article 11(t) applies to applications or petitions not specifically provided for, with a fee of Rs. 10. The court noted that Article 11(l) is a residuary provision and that the legislature intended a uniform court fee of Rs. 100 per petitioner, regardless of the number of distinct proceedings challenged.

5. Relevance of Prior Judgments and Amendments:
The court referred to prior judgments, including Somanathan v. State of Kerala and Radhamma v. Srivasthava, which supported the view that a consolidated court fee is sufficient when multiple petitioners join in a writ petition. The court emphasized that the 2003 Amendment Act introduced a new concept, prescribing a court fee of Rs. 100 per petitioner for writ petitions in the High Court, irrespective of the number of distinct causes of action.

6. Directions for Disposal of Revision and Stay Petitions:
The court directed the second respondent to consider and dispose of the revision petitions (Exhibits P14 to P24) filed against the penalty orders (Exhibits P1 to P11) expeditiously, with notice and an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner. Pending the disposal of the revision petitions, the second respondent was instructed to pass orders on the stay petitions (Exhibits P25 to P35) within one month. The recovery steps pursuant to Exhibit P36 demand notice were to be kept in abeyance until then.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that in a writ petition based on the same set of facts and legal questions, a petitioner needs to pay only one set of court fees (Rs. 100), regardless of the number of distinct proceedings challenged. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the expeditious handling of the revision and stay petitions.

← Previous Next →