2010 (4) TMI 1005 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Can the financial difficulty of the litigant be an adequate reason, for not satisfying the additional court fee prescribed under the relevant provisions of law to entertain the statutory appeal; for availing the discretionary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India ? Held that - The only question is whether the financial difficulty of the petitioner is a ground to exempt the petitioner from satisfying the statutory requirement of paying the additional court fee for entertaining the appeal and to have the merits of the case considered, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. No such proposition has been made by the honourable Supreme court in the above decision and no other decision in this regard has been brought to the notice of this court. Exhibits P15 and P16 applications preferred by the petitioner for exempting from such liability were rejected by the Tribunal as per exhibit P17, holding that there was no provision to provide such exemption. The correctness and sustainability of the impugned orders passed by the third and second respondents was subjected to challenge before this court, leading to exhibit P18 judgment declining interference in this writ petition; which has been confirmed by the Division Bench by passing exhibit P19; dismissing the writ appeal. This being the position, the attempt of the petitioner to reconsider the matter further, by raising the very same grounds of challenge through a fresh writ petition, cannot but be described as an abuse of the process of court.

Summary

Issues:
Can financial difficulty be a reason to avoid paying additional court fees for a statutory appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Should provisions under Order XLIV and Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure be applicable to proceedings before the Tribunal? Is challenging the additional court fee requirement and seeking exemption a valid ground for interference under article 226? Is the petitioner's attempt to raise the same grounds in a fresh writ petition considered an abuse of the court process?

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in rubber trade, challenged assessment orders and subsequent appeals were rejected for not remitting the additional court fee. The Tribunal rejected exemption applications, leading to defective appeals. The petitioner then filed a writ petition, contending that provisions under Order XLIV and Order XXXIII should apply, citing a Supreme Court decision. The court held that the challenge against the additional court fee requirement was misconceived based on previous judgments. The court also found that the provisions cited by the petitioner were not applicable. A subsequent appeal was dismissed, confirming the earlier judgment. The petitioner filed a fresh writ petition, citing financial difficulty as a reason for not paying the additional court fee, which was considered an abuse of court process. The court dismissed the writ petition with costs.

The court referenced a Division Bench decision regarding the maintainability of a revision petition and clarified that the right to challenge orders in a writ petition was not absolute. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court decisions regarding alternate remedies not being a bar to a writ petition under Article 226. The court reiterated that financial difficulty does not exempt a litigant from paying the additional court fee for statutory appeals and seeking exemption, as no such proposition was established by the Supreme Court or other decisions. The court found the petitioner's attempt to raise the same grounds in a fresh writ petition as an abuse of the court process and dismissed the petition with costs. The court directed the registry to forward the verdict to the Department of Finance for cost recovery.