BH. SATYANARAYANAMURTI Vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference raises the question of the Court fee payable on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a Writ of mandamus directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to entertain the application filed by the) Petitioner and to dispose of it according to law.

(2.) THE Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is now situated in the City of Hyderabad. The taxing Officer expressed the opinion that the Court fed payable on the said application is Rs. 100/ - under Article 11 (1) of Schedule II of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, VII of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the Court fee payable is Rs. 2/ - under serial No. 1 (d) of schedule II of the Hyderabad Court Fees Act. Before adverting to the argument we shall briefly notice the nature of writ proceedings so far as is material to the question raised before us.

(3.) THE judgment of Govinda Menon and llamaswami (Sounder JJ. in Ramayya v. State of Madras : ILR (1952) Mad 698 : AIR 1952 Mad 300) (B) did not express a view different from that of the earlier division Bench. Therein, the learned Judges were only considering the question whether an appeal lay against an order of a single Judge dismissing an application for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari. In that context, they held that the matter involved in the appeal before them was an original civil proceeding and not a Criminal Proceeding.