THE VISHNU PRATAP SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD. versus THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF STAMPS, U.P.

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 920 · Decided: 04-05-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

THE VISHNU PRATAP SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD. 
v. 
THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF STAMPS, U.P. 
May 4, 1967 
(R. S. BACHAWAT, J. M. SHBLAT AND V. BH>,RGAVA, JJ,) 
Court Fees Act, 1870 (8 of 1870), S. 7 (Iv-A), (a) and S. 7 (iv-B) 
(b)-Acts impositing tax-Suit for injunction on the ground that Acts 
void-Court Jee pt>yab/e. 
The appellant-company filed a suit against the State ·of U.P. and 
Union of India for a permanent injunction restraining the State from pro-
ceeding to realise cess and tax under the U .P. Sugar Cane Cess Act 
1956 read with U.P. Sugar Cane Cess (Validation) Act, 1961 and the 
Sugar Cane Purchase Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the Acts were 
invalid and void. On its plaint, the appellant paid court-fees under sub-
s, (iv-B) (b) of s. 7 on the footing that the relief sought was an injunc-
tion. 
The respondent the Chief Inspector of Stamps objected, contmd-
ing that court-fees payable were under sub-11. (iv-A) of s. 7 on the 
ground that the suit was for a declaratory decree, 
where consequential 
relief prayed for was an injunction or Of adjudging void an instrument 
securing money or other property havina such value. 
The trial Court 
rejected the respondent's objection, which the High 
Court 
revened. 
In appeal, this Court, 
HELD : The court-fees payable on the plaint were under cl. (b) 
of sub-s. (iv-B) of s. 7 and neither cl. (a) of sub-5, (iv-A) of s. 7 nor 
sub-s. (iv-A) of s. 7 applied. 
The plaint when read as a whole showed that though the appellant 
alleged that the Acts were void and therefore non-est for the reasons 
set out therein, it did not seek any declaration that they were void. The 
plaint proceeded on the footing that the said Acts were void and that 
therefore the State of U .P. or its authorities had no power to realise 
the tax and the cess. It may be that while deciding whether to grant 
the injunction or not, the court might have to consider the question as to 
the validity or otherwise of the said Acts. 
But that must happen in 
almost every case where an injunction is prayed for. 
If for the mere 
reason that the court might have to go into such a question, a pr8fer 
for injunction were to be treated as one for a declaratory decree of which 
the consequential relief is injunction all suits where in1unction is prayed 
for would have to be treated as falling under cl. (a) of sub-s. (iv) of s. 7 
and in that v~w cl. 
(b) of sub-I. 
(iv) of s, 7 would be superfluous. 
[924E-H! 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Ramanbhal Ashabhal Patel v. Dabhl A/ltkumar Fulsln;I, 
[1965] 1 
G 
S.C.R. 712 : referred to. 
Ordinarily a statute is not an instrument unless as in the case 
of 
Conveyancing Act, 1881, the definition includes it or as in the case of 
s. 205 (I) (viii) of the Law of Property Act, 1925, tho statute crootes 
a settlement and such statute is for that reason trea.OOd as an instrument, 
~o. the Acts alleged in the plaint to be void are not instruments within 
t
'..he meaning of sub-s. (iv-A) of s. 7. [923 G-H] 
H 
Mohan Chowdhury v. ·The Chief Commissioner [1964] 
3 
S.C.R. 
442, and Emperor v. Ravango11da Lingangouda Patil; 
A.I.R. 
1944 
Born. 259. referred to. 
VISHNU PRATAP LTD. v. CHIEF INSPECTOR (She/at, J.) 92 I 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1668 of 
B 
c 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 2, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision 
No. 1095 of 1965. 
G. N. Dixit, for the appellant. 
Bishan Narain and 0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shelat, J, 
The appellant-company filed suit No. 16 of 1963 
against the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Union of India, inter 
alia, praying for a permanent injunction restaining the State of 
Uttar Pradesh, its servants and agents from realising or from pro-
ceeding· to realise sugarcane cess and purchase tax amounting to 
Rs. 33 lakhs and odd charged under the U.P. Sugar Cane (Regu-
lation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953, the Sugar Cane Cess 
Act, 1956 read with the U.P. Sugar Cane Cess (Validation) Act, 
1961 and the U.P. Sugar Cane Purchase Tax Act, IX of 1961. 
o In the said suit, the appellant-company, inter-a/ia, alleged that 
the Acts for the diverse reasons set out therein were invalid and 
void and therefore the State was not entitled to levy, collect or 
recover the said cess or the purchase tax and prayed, as aforesaid. 
that the State should be restrained from proceeding to realise the 
said cess or tax. 
The appellant-company paid c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.