The court has no power to order the refund of court fees in tax matters remanded to the Board of Revenue for fresh disposal.

CHANDRA REDDY, C. J, J.

( 1 ) THIS matter has been brought before us on an objection raised by the Office that no directions could be given for the refund of Court-fee in these appeals.

( 2 ) IT may be recalled that while allowing the appeals brought by certain assessees under section 23 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, `957 and remanding the cases for fresh disposal according to law, a direction was issued to refund the Court-fee paid on the memoranda of appeal.

( 3 ) THE main question that arises for consideration is whether this Court has power to order refund of Court-fee while remanding the tax matter to the Board of Revenue for fresh disposal. In this context, reference has to be made to section 64 of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act (herein after referred to as the Act ). That recites (omitting the unnecessary portion) : "64 (1) where a plaint or memorandum of appeal rejected by the lower Court is ordered to be received, or where a suit is remanded in appeal for fresh decision by the lower Court, the Court making the order or remanding the appeal may direct the refund to the appellant of the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal; and if the remand is on second appeal, also on the memorandum of appeal in the first appellate Court, and if the remand is in Letters Patent Appeal, also on the memorandum of second appeal and memorandum of appeal in the first appellate Court. "

( 4 ) IT is seen that the jurisdiction of this Court is subject limitations. The first essential conditions to be satisfied before the section could be invoked is that, the remand must be of a suit or of an appeal for fresh decision. Shri Anantha Babu, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the word suit is wide enough to include any proceeding in any Court or a Tribunal and there is no warrant for restricting its connotation to proceedings started with a plaint. Since this is a word of wide significance, we should construe it as extending to proceedings started before Sales-tax Tribunals as well. As substantiating this proposition, the learned counsel invited our attention to a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Krishnappa v. Shivappa, ILR 31 Bom 393 where it was observed that according to the Civil Procedure Code, the essentials of a suits are (1) opposing parties, (2) a subject in dispute, (3) a cause of action and (4) a demand of relief. Basing himself on this ruling, the learned counsel maintains that any proceeding which contains the four elements would constitute a suit. We do not think we can assent to this view. The learned Judge were considering the question as to what proceeding would constitute a suit. They were only concerned with as to what the ingredients of a contentions suit should be. That decisions does not throw any light on the question to be answered by us.

( 5 ) THE problem that is posed in this matter is easy of solution. There can be little doubt that it is only a proceeding commenced with the presentation of a plaint that would amount to a suit and not each and every proceeding in what ever forum it might be initiated. There is abundant authority for this proposition.

( 6 ) IT was inter alia down in Rajagopala Chettiar v. H. R. E. Board, Madras, ILR 57 Mad 271 : (AIR 1934 Mad 103 (2)) by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court that a proceeding which has not commenced with a plaint was not a suit and where there was no suit there can be no decree. In support of the first part of their conclusion, the learned Judges placed reliance on Venkata Chandrappa Nayanivaru v. Venkatarama Reddi, ILR 22 Mad 256.

( 7 ) TO a like effect is the decision of this Court in Narapu Reddy v. Reddamma, ILR (1958) Andh Pra 822. The question that fell to be considered there was whether an order of adjudication is a decree that fell within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code and the answer was in the negative for the reason that it is only a determination of the rights of the parties in a suit that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document