IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 2261 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7780/2009 Dated 15/06/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ C.K.SUNNUY, PROPRIETOR, CHIRAYIL AGENCIES, CHIRAYIL HOUSE,VELOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.C.MATHEW, CHETHIMATTATHIL HOUSE, VELOOR, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT./ BY ADV. SRI.K.M.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SALE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 4. ADDL.SALE TAX OFFICER-II, SALE TAX OFFICE, I CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. 5. DEPUTY TAHSIDAR(RR),KOTTAYAM. BY G.P. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO. 2381 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.R. C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W. A. No. 2261 & 2381 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeals are filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge holding that Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has no powers to entertain the claim of the appellant that he is an indigent person eligible to file appeal under Order XLIV of CPC without payment of court fee. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellants and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF HARYANA V. SMT. DARSHANA DEVI, A.I.R. 1979 SC 855 and contended that Order XXXIII as well as Order XLIV giving powers to civil court to permit filing of suits and appeals by parties as indigent persons without payment of court fee, apply to Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. On going through the judgment above referred, we find that it is rendered in the context of a claim 2 petition filed under the M.V. Act before the MACT without payment of court fee. Supreme Court held that since MACT has the trapping of a civil court, it has all the power under Order XXXIII contained in the CPC. However, we do not think the decision applies here because determination of compensation under the MV Act by MACT is almost in the same manner civil court decides civil suits. In fact civil judges are notified as MACTs. and the purpose of constitution of the Tribunal is for early disposal of cases. In fact, prior to constitution of MACTs, suits for damages under the MV Act were decided in civil suits by civil courts. However, so far as Sales Tax Act is concerned, it is a statute providing for levy and collection of tax and the powers of the authorities are found in the statute itself. Section 53 gives only limited powers to the appellate authority, revisional authority and the Tribunal. For easy reference we extract hereunder the said Section: Section 53. Power to summon witnesses and cause production of documents.- An assessing authority or an appellate or revising authority (including the appellate Tribunal) shall, for the purposes of this Act, have all the powers conferred on a Court by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) in respect of the following matters, namely,- 3 (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath or affirmation; and, (b) compelling the production of any document. It is clear from the above provisions that the powers of the civil court to be exercised by authorities under the statute pertain only to summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath or affirmation and for compelling production of documents. Since the statutory authorities under the KGST Act are not conferred with any powers of civil court contained in Order XXXIII and Order XLIV of the CPC, none of the statutory authorities including the Tribunal has the authority to dispense with payment of court fee. We therefore confirm the judgment of the learned single Judge and dismiss the appeals. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 4