LexSECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER versus ZENITH LAMP & ELECTRICAL LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c· D E F G 973 SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER v. ZENITH LAMP & ELECTRICAL LTD. November 10, 1972 [S. M. StKRI, C.J., A. N. RAY, D. G. PALEKAR M. H. BEG AND S. N. DWIVEDI, JJ.) Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 14 of 1955-Hlgh Court Fees Rules 1956, Rule I-Enhancement of Court-fee 011 aJ valorcm hasis_:_Validity of-Court fees whether fees or tax, factors to be taken into consideration for cleter111ini11g-Phrase "Fees taken in Court" in List I E11try 77 and List II Entry 3 of Seventh Schedule to Comtirution of India, meaning of. The respondent petitioners intended to file a suit in the Madras Hiab Court on the oriainal side valued at Rs. 2,06,552, aaainst the Revenue. The petitioner ftled a writ petition in the High Court on the question of court-fee payable in the in~nded suit praying that the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or other direction or order declar- ing Rule I of the High Court Fee Rules 1956 and the provisions of the Madrns High Court F~ and Suits Valuation Act 14 of 1955 to be in· valid and ultra ·vfres insofar as they related to the levy of fees on ad va/ore111 scale. It was urged that the increase made in 1955 and 1956 in the court fees payable was unjustifiable in the light of the cxpcndituri: actually incurred in the administration of civil justice. In its counter-· affidavit the State urged that the rates of fee prescribed under the Court Fees Act of 1955 were not excessive and that ihe levy did not amount to a tax on litigation. A supplemental affidavit was filed on behalf of th~ State on October 11, 1966 in which various statements were given to show that the expenditure on the administration of justice was higher than the receipts. The petitioner objected that there were several inadmissible items which had been taken into account. The High Court struck down the levy found in Art. I of Schedule 1 of the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1955 in its application to the High Court. With certificate, appeal was filed in this Court. The Court had to consider whCther the "fees taken in coun" in Entry 3 List II Schedule VI! of the Constitution :ire taxes or fees or whether they are sui t?e;1eris. Allowing the appeal. Held: (i) The history of court fees in England as well as in India· sho~s. that. fees taken in court were not levied as taies and the costs of admmistratton was always one of the factors that was present. (ii) It seems plain that ''fees taken in court" are not taxes for if it '~'ere ~o, the w?.rd 'taxes~ \Vould have beeil used or some other i~dica llon given. ThlS conclus1on is strengthened by two considerations. First taxes that can be levied by the Union are mentioned in List I from EntrY S2 in List II t~xes that c~n b~ imp~sed start from Entry 45. Secondly the v_crv use of the word~ not mcludmg fees taken in any court' in Entry 96 1:tst I and Enny 66 Ltst II shows that they would otherwise have fullen within these Entries. It follows that "fees taken in court" cannot be equated to Taxes'. There is no e"ential difference between fees taken in C ?urt and other fees .. It is dillkult to appreciate why the word 'fees" h<ars a <h.ffcrent meaning m Entries 77 List I and Entry 96 List I or Entry 3 List II and Entry 66 List ll. [982 A·CJ 974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 2 S.C.R, (iii) But even if the meaning is the same, what is 'fees' in a particular case depends on the subject-matter in relation to which the fees are imposed. The present case related to th.e administration of civil justice in a State. The fees must have relation to the administration of civil jus- tice. While levying fees the appropriat,e legislature is competent to take into account all relevant factors, the value of the subject matter of the dispute, the various steps necessary in the pros.ecution of a suit or matter, the entire cost of the upkeep of courts and officers administering civil justice, the vexatious nature of certain types of litigation and other. rele- vant matters. It is free to levy a small fee in some cases, a large fee in others, subject of course to th.e provisions or Art. 14. But one thin~ the legislature is not competent to do, and that is to make litigants contribute to ·the increase of general public revenue. In other words, it cannot tax litigation and make litigations pay, say for road building or education ·or other beneficial schemes that a State
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.