2004 (9) TMI 636 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the notification issued by the State Government on 14.4.1969 prescribing the registration fee on a graduated form on the basis of value of subject matter of the instrument is in accordance with the spirit of section 78 of the Registration Act and is valid in law?

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notification dated 14.4.1969 issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 78 of the Registration Act.
2. Distinction between tax and fee.
3. Legal principles governing the imposition of fees by the State Government.
4. Application of Article 266 of the Constitution regarding the Consolidated Fund.
5. Precedents and legal interpretations relevant to the case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notification:
The plaintiffs challenged the notification dated 14.4.1969 issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 78 of the Registration Act, seeking a declaration that it was void and ultra vires. The notification prescribed registration fees for documents, which the plaintiffs argued was a tax rather than a fee. The courts below had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the notification null and void and ordering a refund of the registration fee paid.

2. Distinction Between Tax and Fee:
The courts below relied on the distinction between tax and fee as elucidated in the Shirur Mutt case (AIR 1954 SC 282). The primary argument was that a fee is a charge for a special service rendered to individuals by a governmental agency and should be correlated to the expenses incurred in rendering the service. In contrast, a tax is levied as part of a common burden without such specific correlation.

3. Legal Principles Governing the Imposition of Fees:
The Supreme Court examined the evolution of the legal principles governing the imposition of fees. It was noted that the traditional view requiring a strict quid pro quo for fees had undergone significant changes. The modern view, as established in cases like Sreenivasa General Traders vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1983 SC 1246), holds that a broad and general correlation between the levy and the services rendered is sufficient. The court emphasized that the fee need not be directly proportional to the service rendered to each individual.

4. Application of Article 266 of the Constitution:
Article 266 of the Constitution mandates that all revenues received by the Government, including fees, must be credited to the Consolidated Fund of India or the State. This provision was highlighted to counter the argument that fees should be kept in a separate fund. The court clarified that the merging of fees into the Consolidated Fund does not change their character from fee to tax.

5. Precedents and Legal Interpretations:
The court reviewed several precedents, including the Shirur Mutt case, Sreenivasa General Traders, and others, to establish the current legal position. It was noted that the earlier view requiring a strict correlation between fees and services has been relaxed. The court also overruled previous decisions that relied on the outdated view of fee and tax distinction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the High Court, District Judge, and Senior Sub-Judge, Solan. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. The court held that the notification issued by the State Government prescribing the registration fee was valid and in accordance with the law. The decision clarified that a broad correlationship between the fee collected and the services rendered is sufficient, and the requirement for a strict quid pro quo is no longer applicable. The merging of fees into the Consolidated Fund as per Article 266 does not invalidate the fee as a tax.

← Previous Next →