STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SHIVALINGAPPA SHIVAPPA YENDIGERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition by the State the order dt.23-12-1975 passed by the Munsiff and JMFC, Ramadurg, in Crl Misc Case 34 of 1975, is challenged. Crl Misc Case 34 of 1975 was filed by the Asst Commercial Tax Officer under S.13(3) (b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, praying that the respondent Shivalingappa having not paid the arrears of sales tax of Rs. 1,285-75, the same mav be recovered from him as if it was a fine imposed by the Magistrate. The office of the Magistrate raised two objections in regard to the maintainability of the application. The first obiection was that Court-fee ought to have been paid on the application. The second ob]pcticn was that the application was not maintainable in the Court of the JMFC, as what was requested by the applicant was an order to be parsed in discharge of functions of an Executive Magistrate in an administrative capacity. By the order in question, the learned Magistrate has upheld both the objections. That is challenged in this petition. Sec.69 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, lays down what documents are exempt from payment of Court-fee. Sri Kuranga, learned Govt Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, relied on S.69(xiii) and contended that no Court-fee was required to, be paid on the application in question. S.69(xiii) reads as follows:

(2.) Even then the contention of Sri Kuranga that the first and second proviso to S.4 of the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, would be applicable, and as such, the order passed by the Magistrate in regard to this aspect of the matter is not sustainable, is sound. S.4 of the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act reads as follows :

(3.) What can be easily gathered from the first proviso is that even if not Court-lee or insufficient Court-fee has been paid on a document filed in a Criminal Court, and if that Court is of opinion that it is necessary to allow filing of such document in order to prevent failure of justice, then the Court has discretion to allow filing of such document. What is laid down by the second proviso makes it abundantly clear that no Court-fee is payable on such application, as the same has been filed on behalf of the State Govt by an Officer of the State Govt, viz, the Asst Commercial Tax Officer, in his official caparty. in this view of the matter, the fact that such a document does not fall within the proviso to S.69 of the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, will not come in the way of filing of the application by the Asst Commercial Tax Officer. The effect of S.4 of the Court-fees Act has been ignored by the learned Magistrate.