Skip to content


K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P.), Ltd. Vs. State of Madras - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1966)2MLJ238
AppellantK.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P.), Ltd.
RespondentState of Madras
Cases ReferredBalakrishna Chetty v. State of Madras
Excerpt:
- .....j.1. these petitions are filed praying for the refund of court-fee paid by the petitioner in the writ petitions filed before this court. these petitions were filed for the issue of writs in the nature of mandamus and certiorari for quashing certain sales tax assessments made against it. before these petitions were numbered, they were returned for rectifying certain defects. before these defects were rectified, an appeal by the petitioner to the supreme court regarding the same matter was allowed. therefore, the petitioner felt that it was not necessary to prosecute these writ petitions. in the circumstances the petitioner has prayed for refund of the court-fee paid by it in these writ petitions.2. the provision relating to refund of the court-fee is section 70 of the madras court-fees.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.S. Kailasam, J.

1. These petitions are filed praying for the refund of Court-fee paid by the petitioner in the Writ Petitions filed before this Court. These petitions were filed for the issue of Writs in the nature of mandamus and certiorari for quashing certain sales tax assessments made against it. Before these petitions were numbered, they were returned for rectifying certain defects. Before these defects were rectified, an appeal by the petitioner to the Supreme Court regarding the same matter was allowed. Therefore, the petitioner felt that it was not necessary to prosecute these Writ Petitions. In the circumstances the petitioner has prayed for refund of the Court-fee paid by it in these Writ Petitions.

2. The provision relating to refund of the Court-fee is Section 70 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. Under the Section, when the fee is paid by mistake or inadvertance, it shall be ordered to be refunded. The fee was certainly not paid by any mistake or inadvertance. It was deliberately paid for obtaining the relief in the Writ Petitions. But as an appeal was decided in its favour, the petitioner did not want to pursue the Writ Petitions. In the circumstances, Section 70 will not be applicable.

3. In Zahoorunnissa Begum v. Mohammed Ali : AIR1962Mad437 the circumstances under which refund of Court-fee could be ordered are set out. In Balakrishna Chetty v. State of Madras : (1962)2MLJ186 a Bench of this Court held that the Court-fee of Rs. 100 paid under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act should be refunded when the revision petition was sought to be withdrawn before it took effect by being taken on file and numbered. The Bench held that as the provisions of the Court-fees Act are obviously not applicable and as there is no provision in the Sales Tax Act relating to refund of Court-fee, the Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction and direct a refund of the fee where the petition was sought to be withdrawn before it took effect by being taken on file and numbered.

4. There is no dispute that the Court-fee payable in the Writ Petitions is governed by the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and, therefore, Section 70 of the Act is applicable. The decision in Balakrishna Chetty v. State of Madras : (1962)2MLJ186 is not applicable as the Court-fee was paid under the General Sales Tax Act where there are not provisions relating to refund of fee. The fee paid cannot be refunded under the Court-fees Act. When the Act specifically provides under what circumstances a refund can be ordered, it is not justifiable for the Court to exercise its inherent powers and direct refund in cases not covered by the Act.

5. These petitions are dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //