1976 (9) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of correct court fees payable for a petition filed in the High Court under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
2. Interpretation of section 18 of the Surtax Act regarding the applicability of certain provisions of the Income-tax Act.
3. Application of court fee provisions under the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, specifically articles 16 of Schedule I and 1(f)(iii) of Schedule II.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application in revision under section 5(2) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, concerning the correct court fees payable for a petition filed by a private limited company assessed under the Income-tax Act and the Surtax Act. The petitioners sought to refer questions of law to the High Court after exhausting appeal options. The dispute arose when the officer charged with assessing court fees contended that fees under article 16 of Schedule I were applicable, while the petitioners paid fees under article 1(f)(iii) of Schedule II. The Taxing Master upheld the petitioners' contention, leading to the present revision application.

The central issue revolves around the interpretation of section 18 of the Surtax Act, which applies certain provisions of the Income-tax Act, including section 256 for High Court reference, to the Surtax Act. The application of these provisions is subject to specific modifications, such as the definition of "assessee" under the Surtax Act differing from that under the Income-tax Act. The judgment emphasizes that the modifications made under section 18 are crucial in determining the applicability of court fee provisions.

The court extensively discusses the construction of article 16 of Schedule I of the Bombay Court Fees Act, which mandates specific fees for applications made under section 256 of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasizes the strict interpretation of court fee laws and highlights that the application under section 256 must be distinct from one under section 256 read with section 18 of the Surtax Act. The judgment clarifies that the application to the High Court was made under section 256 read with section 18, indicating a different legal context than a straightforward section 256 application.

Ultimately, the court dismisses the revision application, upholding the Taxing Master's decision on the correct court fees payable. The judgment underscores the importance of the modifications under section 18 of the Surtax Act in determining the legal framework for court fee assessment in cases involving both the Income-tax Act and the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act.