IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 418 of 2008 -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30916/2007 DATED 30/10/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- M.R.F.LIMITED, VADAVATHOOR KOTTAYAM - 686010, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROS MATTHAI (SR.) SRI.SAJI VARGHESE SMT.MARIAM MATHAI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SALESTAX, KOLLAM-9. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.418 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 20th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The learned Single Judge of this Court, keeping in view the dicta laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chackolas Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. State of Kerala and another, (2006) 145 STC 250, has rejected the writ petition filed by the petitioner, wherein the constitutional validity of Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 has been questioned. 2. In the writ petition filed, the petitioner has called in question the validity or otherwise of Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and also has called in question the levy of court fees and legal benefit fund for statutory appeals and revisions filed before the appellate authorities and revisional authorities under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3. The learned Single Judge, following the dicta laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Chackolas Spinning & Weaving Mills case, has rejected the writ petition. That is how the petitioner in the writ petition is before us in this writ appeal. 4. In Chackolas Spinning & Weaving Mills case, the primary question that came up for consideration before this Court was the legislative competence of the State in empowering the Government to levy additional court fee in respect of appeals or revisions to the Tribunals and appellate authorities under Section 76(1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation W.A.No.418 of 2008 2 Act. A Division Bench of this Court after detailed consideration of the issue that was canvassed before them was pleased to uphold the provisions of Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. In the said decision the Division Bench has observed as under: “Held, dismissing the writ appeal and writ petitions, that the proceeds of the additional court fee levied and collected under section 76(1) of the Court Fees Act and 50 per cent of the court fee levied and collected on mukhtarnama and vakalathnama under article 16 of the Second Schedule to the Act have to be credited to the legal benefit fund constituted under section 76(2) of the Act, Section 76(3) specifically stipulates that the fund constituted under section 76(2) shall be applied and utilised for the purpose of providing an efficient legal service for the people of the State and to provide social security measures for the legal profession. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 76(4) read with section 85 of the Act framed the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund Rules, 1991. Rule 12 of the Rules stipulates that matters for which expenditure may be incurred for the purpose of providing an efficient legal service for the people of the State may include conducting legal aid camps for people interested in the legal service, engaging advocates in special cases, publication of important decisions of the Kerala High Court to create legal awareness among people of the State, etc. The amount intended to provide for social security for the legal profession shall be entrusted to the Secretary, Bar Council of Kerala, who is the convener of the Advocate Welfare Fund, for crediting the same to that fund constituted under the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1980 for being utilised in accordance with the provisions of that Act. Thus, the imposition by the Government satisfies W.A.No.418 of 2008 3 the mandate of article 39A of the Constitution introduced by the 42nd Amendment providing for equal justice and free legal aid. Looking at the object and purpose of the legal benefit fund it cannot be said that there is no relation between the court fee charged and the services rendered. The levy cannot be characterised as a tax and going by service sought to be rendered the court is not justified in holding under article 226 of the Constitution that the levy is disproportionately high.” 5. We are informed by Sri.M.Pathros Matthai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, that Chackolas Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court, has already preferred Special Leave Petition before the Honourable Supreme Court and the same is pending consideration. 6. In our opinion, as far as this Court is concerned, the order passed by this Court has reached the finality. A Division Bench of this Court is expected to follow the dicta laid down by another Division Bench of this Court. In a multi Judge Court, the judges are bound by the precedents and procedure. They could use their discretion only when there is no declared principle to be found. Secondly, the binding effect of a decision does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered therein or not, provided that the point with reference to which an argument was subsequently advanced was actually decided. 7. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the opinion, that, the issues raised in the writ appeal are identical with the issues raised and considered by a Division Bench of this court in Chackolas Spinning & Weaving Mills case. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, that the W.A.No.418 of 2008 4 learned Single Judge was justified in following the dicta laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and since the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not in a position to pinpoint any flaw in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, respectfully following the dicta laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, we reject the writ appeal filed by the appellant. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE vns/DK.