SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1964 Supreme(AP) 178

P.CHANDRA REDDY, NARASIMHAM
Konathala Sriamulu – Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue C. T. , Hyderabad – Respondent


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























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top