TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (1) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee in any manner, or a person regularly employed by the assessee; or (ii) any officer of a scheduled bank with which the assessee maintains a current account or has other regular dealings; or (iii) any legal practitioner who is entitled to practise in any civil court in India; or (iv) an accountant; or (v) any person who has passed any accountancy examination recognised in this behalf by the Board; or (vi) any person who has acquired such educational qualifications as the Board may prescribe for this purpose; or (via) any person who, before the coming into force of this Act in the Union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Goa, Daman and Diu, or Pondicherry, attended before an income-tax authority in the said territory on behalf of any assessee otherwise than in the capacity of an employee or relative of that assessee; or (vii) any other person who, immediately before the commencement of this Act, was an income-tax practitioner within the meaning of clause (iv) of sub-section (2) of section 61 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), and was actually practising as such. Explanation.--In this section, 'accountant' means a chartered accountant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n or more to act in a single transaction is Rs. 50. The stamp duty required to be paid on authorisation filed by chartered accountants and income-tax practitioners in income-tax proceedings of Rs. 50 in a single transaction in the circumstances is in accordance with law and is in order." This is under challenge. It is claimed that the original petition has been filed as a representative action. Though in the writ petition reference is made in respect of the fee pattern prevailing when authorisation is prescribed before other statutory functionaries, the submissions in the original petition were confined in respect of the justifiability of exhibit P-2, viz., the stand taken by the income-tax authorities. Writ petitions challenging similar orders on slightly different lines, filed by two other petitioners, viz., one by a chartered accountant in his individual capacity (O.P. No. 28900 of 2000) and another filed by the Kerala Chartered Accountants Association (O.P. No. 6022 of 2001) were also listed along with the above original petition and opportunity was given to hear them as well. The State Government has filed a counter affidavit. On behalf of the Income tax Commissioner, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; [Two rupees] Collector or Magistrate or other executive officer; (ii) to the Board of Revenue or a Chief Executive [Three rupees] Authority; (iii) to the High Court; [Five rupees] (iv) to the Government; [Five rupees]" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fee leviable is Rs. 2, and this alone, according to him, should have been chargeable. Counsel made also a passing comment that it was absurd to suggest that depending upon the profession of the person who represented a party, the fee could not change. If so, it would be discriminatory and hit by the vice of article 14 of the Cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of attorney when filed in a suit or proceeding, is chargeable with a court fee of Re. 1". According to her, neither the Stamp Act nor article 44 had relevancy since it deals with only power of attorney in relation to transactions not related to any suits or proceedings. She submits that under the Stamp Act, by section 3, instruments are to be charged with stamp duty, and instrument is defined by section 2(j) as document, by which any right or liability is created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. It was further argued that if the authorisation did not come within article 15 of the Court Fees Act, there were no other charging provision, and no fee was at all leviable on the power of attorney presented. Before going into the contentions of the respondents, we may recapitulate the situation so far presented. There appear to be hurdles, than those which had been posed by exhibit P-2 as well. As could be seen from the pleadings the petitioners had understood about the difficult situation wherein they are placed. The Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, while it declares its applicability, prescribes by section 2(1) as following: "(2) Applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... created in favour of an accountant to represent the executant, as recognised by section 288 of the Income-tax Act. Under section 3 of the Stamp Act, it is essential that the instrument mentioned in the Schedule, in the territories of the State of Kerala, are chargeable to duty. It cannot be taken therefore that power of attorney is not a document that is not envisaged, as chargeable. The submissions in paragraph 3 of the reply affidavit (O.P. No. 28900 of 2001) to the effect that: "Thus there is no doubt that authorisation filed under section 288 of the Income-tax Act is an instrument chargeable with a fee under the law relating to court fees for the time being in force and hence the Kerala Stamp Act is not applicable. Since the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is not applicable to any documents presented or to be presented before an officer under the Central Government, the court fees required in such authorisation has to be nil." have no basis in view of section 3, referred to earlier. The contention cannot be acceptable. As such we may examine article 44 as to whether it has relevance. Mr. Raveendranatha Menon, senior counsel submits that since the provisions ....