GAURI SHANKAR MANSARIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six applications under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been filed by the plaintiff. He was assessed to pay income-tax for different assessment years by the Additional Income-tax Officer, Non-Company District 11 (1) Calcutta, hereinafter referred to as the 'Income-tax Officer'. For the realisation of the tax six certificates were issued against him by the Certificate Officer, Bhagalpur. There were appeals against the orders passed by the Certificate Officer to the Additional Collector of Bhagalpur, "which were also dismissed. Then the petitioner preferred revisions before the Commissioner. Bhagalpur Division, and after that before the Member. Board of Revenue. Bihar, Patna. Having failed there, he instituted the six suits in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhagalpur. The reliefs claimed in the suits were:

(2.) As the point arising for decision in each of the Civil Revision is the same, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) Mr. Roy Paras Nath appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the suits were governed by Article 17 (1) of Schedule II to the Act, and not by Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act. Article 17 (1) of Schedule II of the Act runs as follows: "Plaint or memorandum of appeal in each of the following suits. (i) To alter or set aside a summary decision or order of any of the Civil Courts not established by Letters Patent or of any Revenue Court" In this State the amount of court-fee payable for such suits is Rs. 22.50. According to Mr. Roy Paras Nath, the suits are merely for setting aside a summary decision or order of Revenue Courts and therefore, fixed declaratory court-fee of Rs. 22.50 paid by the petitioner in each of the suits is sufficient. In our opinion, Mr, Roy Paras Nath is not correct in his submission. So far relief No, (b) is concerned no doubt, it is covered by Article 17 (1) to Schedule II of the Act, but the other reliefs claimed in the suits are not covered by that Article, under relief No. (a) the petitioner wants a declaration that he was not an assessee and the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer was illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction. It is now well settled that Income-tax Officer is not a Civil or Revenue Court. He was never considered as a Civil Court. The question whether he is Revenue Court or not stands set at rest by two decisions of the Supreme Court in Laljl Haridas v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 SC 1154 at p. 1160, para. 17 and Balwant Singh v. L. C. Bharupal, Income-tax Officer, New Delhi, (1968) 70 ITR 89 (SC). Thus, a suit for a declaration that an assessment order of an Income-tax Officer is illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction cannot be covered by Article 17 (1) to Schedule II of the Act. It is also well settled that a relief for injunction is a consequential relief and, therefore, reliefs (a) and (c) together make the suits of the plaintiff; as suits for declaration with consequential relief. Thus, these suits are also governed, so far as reliefs (a) and (c) are concerned, by Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act. In our opinion, the plaintiff is liable to pay ad valorem court-fee for reliefs (a) and (c) read together under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Act and fixed declaratory court-fee for relief (b) under Article 17 (1) to Schedule II of the Act.