Court quashes Sales Tax Tribunal order on court fees, citing incorrect rule interpretation.

The court quashed the Sales Tax Tribunal's order requiring payment of court fees based on an incorrect interpretation of Rule 85 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947. The court held that the Tribunal erred in determining the fee as five percent of the amount in dispute without proper quantification. A writ of certiorari was issued to correct this error of law apparent on the record, directing a refund of any excess fees paid. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs, and the petitioner's application was allowed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 85 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 regarding payment of fees for filing an appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal.
2. Validity of the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal requiring the petitioner to pay court fees of Rs. 45.90 nP for the appeal.
3. Whether a writ of certiorari can be issued to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis:
1. The case involves an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal. The dispute arises from the interpretation of Rule 85 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947, specifically regarding the payment of fees for filing an appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The petitioner contends that the minimum fee payable under Rule 85 for filing an appeal is one rupee, as per the provisions of the rule. The Tribunal, however, required the petitioner to pay court fees amounting to five percent of the amount in dispute, which the petitioner challenges as incorrect interpretation of the rule. The key issue revolves around the determination of the "amount in dispute" as per the rule, which forms the basis for calculating the applicable fee for filing the appeal.

2. The petitioner's argument is centered on the fact that the determination of the "amount in dispute" is crucial for calculating the fee payable under Rule 85. The petitioner asserts that since there was no quantification of the liability after the original assessment order was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner, there was no demand for tax or penalty at that stage. As a result, the petitioner did not admit to any amount being payable, and the difference between the amount demanded and the amount admitted was indeterminable. The petitioner maintains that the fee payable should be the minimum of one rupee as per the rule, as the question of paying five percent of an undetermined amount in dispute does not arise. The petitioner argues that the Tribunal erred in overlooking the Explanation that defines the "amount in dispute" and, therefore, the order requiring payment of court fees should be quashed.

3. The judgment addresses the broader legal principle that a writ of certiorari can be issued not only in cases of illegal exercise of jurisdiction but also to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record. In this case, the error of law committed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in misinterpreting the provisions of Rule 85 and overlooking the Explanation regarding the "amount in dispute" is deemed to be apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal is quashed, and the petitioner is entitled to a refund of any excess fees paid. The court directs the issuance of a writ of certiorari to set aside the Tribunal's order. The judgment concludes by stating that each party will bear their own costs, and the application is allowed.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the interpretation of Rule 85 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947, and the application of legal principles related to the issuance of a writ of certiorari to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record. The decision highlights the importance of correctly applying statutory provisions and ensuring procedural fairness in administrative and judicial proceedings.

---