BANGLORE CARMEL SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these petitions, petitioners have challenged the amendment of the Karnataka Societies Registration (Amendment) Rules, 2002 as per notification dated 30 -3 -2002 and have sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari challenging the same as constitutionally impermissible beyond the rule making power as provided under Section 30 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 as unenforceable against the petitioners and to direct the respective respondents -Registrar to refund the filing fees if already paid by such of the petitioners.

(2.) PETITIONERS are Societies registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. Section 30 of the Act provides power to make Rules for the State Government by publishing the same in the Official Gazette by way of a notification to carry out the purposes of the Act. In exercise of such powers under Section 30, acting under various provisions of the Act, the State Government can frame Rules to fix such fees and fines for various services rendered or for any such regulatory activities such as for registration of societies, to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, for filing of changes in the memorandum of association and also for filing of change of name, rules and regulations and also similarly for filing of the list and balance sheet and income and expenditure account under Section 13 and fines under Sections 13 and 18 and fee for enquiry under Section 25. In these two set of petitions, petitioners have assailed the amended Rule 9 which provides for imposing fine and also for levying and collecting fees and also with respect to filing of income and expenditure account under Section 13 wherein it is stated that for every Rs. 1 lakh of income and expenditure or part thereof, fine of Rs. 100/ - is prescribed. Prior to amendment during 2002 as per the provision prevailing during 2000, the unamended rule read: Filing of the list and balance sheet and income and expenditure account under Section 13:

(3.) PER contra, Government Advocate submitted that this Court by a Single Judge as well as in Division Bench has elaborately dealt with the matter and having appreciated the legal position as to the think distinction between fees and tax, held that the judgment rendered by the Apex Court referred to by the Division Bench in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Shivalik Agro Poly Products and Ors. : AIR2004SC4393 wherein it is observed that there is no generic difference between tax and fees and both are compulsory exaction of money by public authorities and submitted that the service is being rendered by way of inspecting the documents submitted and verify the statements filed and for that the fees is charged which cannot be held to be ultra vires the Act or the power of the Amendment provided under Section 13 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.