Modified statutory provisions may attract different court-fee treatment where the charging entry refers only to the unmodified section.

An application for a reference under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, as applied to surtax proceedings by section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, was held not to attract the court-fee prescribed for an application under section 256 in its unmodified form. The court applied strict construction of the charging provision and treated the modified statutory route as a distinct proceeding for fee purposes. The petition therefore fell under article 1(f)(iii) of Schedule II to the Bombay Court Fees Act, not article 16 of Schedule I, and the court-fee objection was decided for the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for a reference under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as applied to surtax proceedings by section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, is chargeable to court-fee under article 16 of Schedule I to the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, or under article 1(f)(iii) of Schedule II to that Act.

Analysis: Article 16 of Schedule I applies to an application or petition made by an assessee to the High Court under section 256 of the Income-tax Act. The application in question was not under section 256 simpliciter, but under section 256 as applied to surtax proceedings with the modifications contained in section 18 of the Surtax Act. The Court held that a provision applied with statutory modifications is not the same as the unmodified provision standing alone, and that a charging statute for court-fee must be construed strictly. Since the petition was not one under section 256 of the Income-tax Act in its exact form, it did not fall within article 16.

Conclusion: The petition was chargeable under article 1(f)(iii) of Schedule II and not under article 16 of Schedule I; the Taxing Master was right.

Final Conclusion: The chamber summons failed, and the court-fee objection was decided in favour of the Revenue on the basis that the surtax reference application was a distinct proceeding for court-fee purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute applies another enactment only with modifications, the modified provision is a distinct legal provision for the purpose of a fiscal charging entry, and a fee article referring to the unmodified provision is not attracted unless the case falls squarely within its terms.

---