The Writ Appeal challenging a single Judge judgment dismissing a writ petition regarding imposition of court fee was rejected. The court relied on a Division Bench judgment upholding the validity of fees for the Legal Benefit Fund, finding no reason to distinguish the precedent.
Writ Appeal and IA No.588 of 2007 rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2007 / 22ND ASHADHA 1929
WA.No. 1702 of 2007
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C) NO..20544/2007 DATED 04/07/2007
APPELLANT: PETITIONERS IN W.P.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI SRI.JINU K MOHAN
RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN W.P.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.
W.A. NO. 1702 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 13th July, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.DATTU, C.J .
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.20544 of 2007, dated 4th July, 2007. In the said judgment, the learned Judge has observed as under:
“Since the challenge against levy of court fee in tax matters is rejected by this court and confirmed by Division Bench vide judgment in Chackolas Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2006 (1) KLT 989), this Writ Petition is dismissed following the said judgment.”
legal benefit fund, has observed as under:
“The object and purpose of the legal benefit fund is laudable. Article 39A stipulates that State shall secure that the operation of legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity and shall in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or Schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The Government is collecting fee, which forms part of the Legal Benefit Fund and it cannot be characterized as a tax. The purpose and object of such additional fee has been specifically stated in the statutory rules. In order to achieve the above purpose fees have to be levied.”
The Division Bench further observed as under:
W.A. NO.1702 OF 2007
:: 2 ::
“The correlation between the amount raised through the “fee” and the expenses involved in providing the services need not be examined with a view to ascertaining any accurate, arithmetical equivalence or precision in the correlation but it would be sufficient that there is a broad or general correlation. Looking at the object and purpose of the Legal Benefit Fund, the levy of fee is not disproportionately high.”
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU) Chief Justice
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge
ahz/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Appeal and IA. No.588 of 2007 should be allowed to establish the constitutional validity of additional court fee levy
Whether the Division Bench judgment in Chackolas Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. mandates rejection of the present appeal
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chackolas Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. State of KeralaFollowed¶26
Chackolas Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2006 (1) KLT 989)
Cardamom Marketing Corporation Vandanmedu
Aysa Abu
State of Kerala
Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam
Intelligence Officer Squad No.1, Commercial Taxes Mattancherry
Commercial Tax Officer, Aluva
H.L.Dattu
K.T.Sankaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
