CARDAMOM MARKETING CORPORATION AND ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 7 S.C.R. 917 · Decided: 01-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 7 S.C.R. 917 
CARDAMOM MARKETING CORPORATION AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4453 of2008) 
SEPTEMBEROl,2016 
B 
[A.K. SIKRI, S.A. BOBDE AND ASIIOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Kera/a Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. 1959 - s. 76 -
Notification under, levying additional court fee in respect of each 
appeal or revision filed under Kera/a General Sales Tax Act,19631 
Kercila Value Added Tax Act,2003 and for the amount so collected 
to be credited to the Kera/a Legal Benefit Fund - Appellants, dealers 
under the aforesaid Acts, challenged vires of notification, also 
contending that the levy was in nature of tax and the element of 
service/quid pro quo 11·as absent as !he addilional court fee collected 
from assessees like appellants is used for bene.fil of advocates and 
not for benefit of litigants - High Court upheld the validity of 
notification - On appeal, held: Impugned notificalion is intra vires 
the provision of s. 76 - The levy of additional court fee is meant for 
Legal Benefit Fund which is utilised for providing an efficient legal 
service for the people of the State and to provide social security 
measures for legal profession - Providing efficient legal services 
for the people of the State amounts to quid pro quo - Therefore, 
appellants' argument that the levy in question is in nature of tax 
and there is no quid pro quo is devoid of any meril - Kera/a Court 
Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - s.3(ii) -
Kera/a Legal Benefit 
Fund Rules, 1991 -
rr. 3, 4 - Kera/a Advocates ' Welfare Fund Act, 
1980 - s.3(2)(e) - Kera/a Advocates' Welfare Fund Rules, 1981 -
Kera/a General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - Kera/a Value Added Tax Act, 
2003 -
Constitution of India - 42'"1 Amendmellf, 1976 - Entry JJA, 
List III - Entry 3, List II - Art. 39-A. Part IV - Directive Principles 
of State Policy . 
Ad111i11is1ration of justice - Role of advoca/es - Discussed. 
Dismissing the appeal and the writ petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In terms of clause (e) of sub-section (2) of 
Section 3 ofKcralaAdvocatcs'Wclfare .Fund Act, 1980 the amount 
917 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
918 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 7 S.C.R. 
set apart from the Legal Benefit Fund constituted under Section 
76 of the CF Act is to be credited to the Advocates' Welfare Fund, 
for providing efficient legal services for the people of the State 
and social security measures for the legal profession. In nutshell, 
the additional court fee is meant for the aforesaid Welfare Fund 
which is to be utilised in accordance with the provisions of the 
Welfare Fund Act. From the reading of said provisions it is clear 
that the impugned notification has been issued in exercise of 
powers contained under Section 76 of Kerala Court Fees and 
Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (CF Act). This power extends to levy 
additional court fee by tribunals and other appellate authorities 
constituted by or under any special law. The impugned notification, 
therefore, is intra vires the provision of Section 76 of the CF Act. 
[Paras 7, 8] [924-B-E] 
Chacko/as Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. State of 
Kera/a (2006) 1 KLT 989 - referred to. 
1.2 The main argument of the appellants that the additional 
court fee which is to be paid on the appeals etc. which are to be 
filed either under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or the Kerala 
Value Added Tax Act by virtue of the aforesaid notification, have 
no nexus with the object and, therefore, it docs not have any 
character of 'fee' as no services arc provided to the litigants in 
return is devoid of any merit. It is submitted that since such 
additional court fee collected from the assessees like the 
appellants is used for the benefit of advocates and no benefit 
thereof accrues 10 the litigants, charging of such additional court 
fee is impermissible as it amounts to compulso1·y exaction of 
money from the appellants. [Paras 9, 10) (924-E-G, H; 925-H] 
1.3 First of all, the argument of the appellants ignores that 
as per Section 76(3) of the CF Act, one of the purposes for which 
the Fund is to be utilised is for providing efficient legal services 
for the people of the State. It clearly amounts to quid pro <1110. 
Other purpose is also for the benefit of the public at large. 
Providing social security to the legal profession becomes an 
essential part of any legal system which has to be effective, 
efficient and robust to enable it to provide necessary service to 
the consumers of justice. In a sound and ab
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.