ORDER :- This revision arises out of an order with regard to the liability to pay the court-fee upon an application for compensation filed under S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act. R.291 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, provides for the procedure of making application to the Claims Tribunal. R.292 prescribes the fees that are to accompany such an application and are to be paid in the form of court-fee stamps. R.292, prior to its present amendment introduced by the notification of Oct. 28, 1977, had provided for payment of fixed court-fee of Rs. 10/-. The amended rule which applies to the present claim laid by the applicant in sum of Rs. 70,000/-raises the question of computation of the court-fee. The application was accompanied, it is not in dispute. with the court-fee of rupees 220-50. After computing, upon an interpretation of entry (iii) in the amended sub-rule (1). the Court has directed he applicant to pay Rs. 350/- as the correct court-fee. The Court has treated each entry as an independent provision directing payment of fees unconnected with the other. That order is questioned in the present revision application.

2. The amended sub-rule (1) of the 92 reads as follows :-

"An application for compensation under R.291 shall be accompanied by a fee in the form of Court-fee stamps in accordance with the following scale, namely :-

Amount of claim Fee

1 2

(i) Not exceeding Rs. 5000/-

10/-

(ii)

exceeding Rs. 5000/- but not exceeding Rs. 50,000/-

1/4 percent. of the amount of claim.

(iii ) exceeding Rs. 50,000/-but not exceeding Rs. 1 lakh.

1/4 percent. of the claim.

1 percent. of the amount claim.

(iv ) exceeding Rs.1 lakh.

(Underlining provided to emphasise the use of the words).

3. The underlined portions of the rule call for interpretation irrespective of whether the incident of the fee is higher or lower. Now, in the matters of construction of statutes imposing fiscal liability it is the letter of the law that has to be given effect to irrespective of any other considerations. Therefore, if the meaning be clear, the fee according to that meaning will have to be levied and collected. It is true, however, that if the language be susceptible to two equally reasonable interpretations, then one that would favour the subject will be chosen for application.

4. It is apparent as the history of rules shows that for the first time by the amended rule a graded scale of levy of fees is being prescribed. In other words, the, rule purports to lay down the scale having correlation with the fee required to be paid. In all entries, the rule has used the word exceeding" prescribing the amount and extent. The use of the word "exceeding" in the rule while laying down ale is clearly suggestive of inter-connection inter se between each of the steps and not their disjunction or separation. Entry (i), therefore, prescribes extent of the amount for which a fixed fee of Rs. 10/- has to be paid, while entry (ii) takes into account the amounts above Rs. 5000/- but below Rs. 50,000/- and prescribes the fee for such claim. So also is the position of entries (iii) and (iv). Reading all these entries together, it follow that they were inter-connected and are simply enacted to lay down the graded scale of fees to be levied having reference to the amount of claim, the primary or basic step being indicated by entry (i) that in all cases where the amount is below Rs. 5,000/- the fee is required to be paid at Rs. 10/-, But as the grade rises on the upward side, the rise of the fee is indicated by entries (ii) to (iv).

5. The word "scale" suggests, as its connotation goes, laying down of graduated or ordered series of degrees or stages. It is implicit in the scale that it rises by steps the first or the basic following the other, and it is matter of successive progression of steps having definite links amongst themselves. The concept of scale in the matter of revenue necessarily invol

Click Here to Read the rest of this document