Statutory levy cannot be altered by scheme where regulations prescribe the method for computing registration fee

A statutory authority cannot use an administrative regularisation scheme to alter the prescribed regulatory method for computing registration fee. Where the regulations require turnover data to be furnished in the prescribed manner, a flat-rate levy of 0.01 per cent on gross turnover for non-furnishing of data was held ultra vires and severable from the scheme. The court also noted that the brokers had not availed the time-bound scheme within the stipulated period and had no enforceable right to the original concession, though limited relief was allowed for furnishing turnover data and seeking consideration under the regulations, including interest concession.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the stock brokers represented by the writ petitioner were entitled to the benefit of the regularisation scheme and consequent concession in payment of registration fee. (ii) Whether the provision in the scheme fixing registration fee at a flat rate of 0.01 per cent on gross turnover in case of failure to furnish turnover data was ultra vires the governing regulations.

Issue (i): Whether the stock brokers represented by the writ petitioner were entitled to the benefit of the regularisation scheme and consequent concession in payment of registration fee.

Analysis: The scheme was time-bound and the factual finding was that the writ petitioners did not avail themselves of it within the stipulated period, despite notice and knowledge. The earlier status quo order did not preclude the regulator from issuing the subsequent notice, and the scope of that order was correctly confined to the subject matter then in issue. The Court also held that a concession or relaxation granted in another matter did not create an enforceable right in favour of the writ petitioners, although similar treatment could not be denied on an arbitrary basis once the matter was considered on relief.

Conclusion: The writ petitioners were not entitled as of right to claim the scheme benefit on the original terms, but limited relief was granted to enable them to furnish turnover data and seek consideration of concessional treatment.

Issue (ii): Whether the provision in the scheme fixing registration fee at a flat rate of 0.01 per cent on gross turnover in case of failure to furnish turnover data was ultra vires the governing regulations.

Analysis: Registration fee under the regulatory framework was to be computed on the basis of turnover data furnished in the manner prescribed by the regulations. A scheme or administrative arrangement could not override the statutory regulations or create a different mode of levy inconsistent with them. The Court held that the purported flat-rate levy was not justified as an implied power, because the regulations already provided the method and consequences for default, and the authority was bound to act in the manner prescribed. The provision was also treated as severable from the remainder of the scheme.

Conclusion: The flat-rate levy of 0.01 per cent was ultra vires the regulations and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the flat-rate levy failed against the regulator, while the writ petitioners obtained partial relief permitting them to furnish turnover data and have their request processed in accordance with the regulations, with consideration of interest concession.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority cannot, by an administrative scheme, alter or override the prescribed regulatory method of levy and collection, and where the law prescribes a manner for doing an act, it must be done in that manner alone.

---