1981 (11) TMI 192 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Constitutional validity of new Section 6-11 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, substituted by the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1981 - court-fee payable by each petitioner - petition in which thirteen petitioners had joined - Held that - each of the petitioners in the present writ petition, has his own distinct and separate cause of action arising out of his liability to pay the tax individually under the impugned taxing provision. Since the present writ petition embraces more than one of such causes of action and separate relief s sought therein, namely, to restrain the respondents from enforcing the impugned taxing provision against each of the petitioners, are based on them (such causes of action), it (the present writ petition) is chargeable with the aggregate amount of the court-fees with which the petitions would be chargeable under the Act if separate writ petitions had been presented in respect of several causes of action, a required by sub-section (3) read with substitution (4) of Section 6 of the Act. Under Clause (S) of Article I of Sch. II of the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 read with sub-sees. (3) and (4) of Section 6 of that Act, each of the petitioners, in the present writ petition, is liable to pay thereon a separate court-fee of ₹ 100, as if he had presented a separate writ petition. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Court-fee payable on a writ petition filed by multiple petitioners.
2. Determination of common versus separate and distinct interest among petitioners.
3. Application of sub-rules of Rule 7 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977.
4. Interpretation of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 6 of the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Court-fee Payable on a Writ Petition Filed by Multiple Petitioners:
The primary issue was the court-fee payable on a writ petition filed by thirteen petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of a taxing provision. The petitioners paid a court fee of Rs. 100, but the office of the Court objected, stating the correct fee was Rs. 1,300. The single Judge upheld this objection, leading to the appeal.

2. Determination of Common Versus Separate and Distinct Interest Among Petitioners:
The Court examined whether the petitioners had a "common interest" or "separate and distinct interest" in the subject matter. The petitioners argued they had a common interest as they all challenged the same taxing provision. However, the Court found that each petitioner, engaged in separate liquor vending businesses, had a separate and distinct interest. The Court distinguished "common interest" from "similar interest," emphasizing that common interest involves a collective interest, like villagers grazing cattle on common land, whereas similar interests are individual but alike.

3. Application of Sub-rules of Rule 7 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977:
The petitioners contended that sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 applied, allowing them to file a single petition as they sought a common relief. The Court, however, determined that sub-rule (1) applied, as each petitioner had a separate and distinct interest. The explanation to sub-rule (2) did not apply since the petitioners sought individual reliefs, making their interests distinct rather than common.

4. Interpretation of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 6 of the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958:
The Court interpreted sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 6, which state that if a suit or petition involves multiple distinct causes of action, the aggregate court-fee must be paid as if separate petitions were filed. The Court concluded that each petitioner had a separate cause of action due to individual liability under the impugned tax provision. Thus, the aggregate court-fee was required.

Conclusion:
The Court upheld the single Judge's ruling that each petitioner must pay a separate court-fee of Rs. 100, totaling Rs. 1,300. The appeal was dismissed, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.