CHADAJI KUBAJI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) T.R.C.No. 14 of 1956 is an application filed on behalf of the assessee for revision of the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Tribunal Appeal No. 120 of 1955. When the case came on for hearing before us, Sri N. Rajeswara Rao, the learned advocate for the petitioner represented that the Revision Case might be dismissed as withdrawn. Simultaneously with this representation, he presented a Civil Miscellaneous Petition praying, that a certificate may be granted to the petitioner that the court-fee stamp of Rs. 100/- affixed to the memorandum of revision "had been defaced by the High Court in the usual course of routine and that the amount of the stamp might be refunded to the petitioner by the Collector after deducting one anna in the rupee." In support of this prayer Sri Rajeswara Rao cited the decision of Satyanarayana Raju J. in C. M. P. No. 5776 of 1955 where the learned Judge made an order in S. A. No. 626 of 1955 in the terms now prayed for by the petitioner. No reference is made in the order of the learned Judge to any statutory provision or precedent justifying it. Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court-Fees Act do not obviously apply to the case of the withdrawal of an appeal or a revision petition. The question may however arise and has arisen, whether the court has got inherent power to grant refund of court-fee in cases not falling within the provisions of the Court-Fees Act.

(2.) In Thamayya Naidu v. Venkataramanamma the learned Judges found that the appellant before the High Court had paid ad valorem court-fee of Rs. 2332-7-0 in a land acquisition appeal by mistake, when all the court-fee that he need have paid was Rs. 500/-. The appellant applied for a refund of the excess court-fee paid by him. The court over-ruled the objection of the Government Pleader that there was no power in the court to go beyond the provisions of sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court-Fees Act which allowed a refund of the court-fee only in certain cases and that the case before the High Court was not covered by any of those provisions. It was held that under Sec. 151 C. P, C. the High Court had power to order a refund of court- fee paid in excess under a bonafide mistake. The learned Judges observed as follows :

(3.) The decisions of the three Division Benches of the Madras High Court to which we have referred above, are authority for the position that the court has no power to order refund of the court-fee in a case where the memorandum of appeal has been properly presented to the court and the appeal has also been registered and numbered by the court. Thereafter, the appeal could be disposed of only by a judicial order either allowing it or dismissing it either on the merits or because it is not pressed and is withdrawn. In such a case, it appears to us that there is no power in the court to make an order for refund of court-fee which would really mean that we are dispensing with the payment of. court-fee on the appeal preferred by the appellant. There are cases where appeals preferred out of time are dismissed in limine. In such cases, too, it cannot be said that the appellant is entitled to apply for a refund of court-fee. The inherent power to make an order for refund of court-fee must be confined to the cases authorised by precedent and cannot arbitrarily be extended. For these reasons, we are of the opinion, differing respectfully from the order of Satyanarayana Raju J. in C. M. P. No. 5776 of 1955, that there is no power in this Court to order a refund of the court fee in the circumstances of this case. The petition for refund is therefore dismissed. T. R. C. No. 14 of 1956 is withdrawn and is dismissed. T. A. B Petition dismissed.