WEST BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (PROCEDURAL) RULES, 1994

Rule - 1. Payment of Application fee in Court-fee stamp.

Relevant extracts from West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (Procedural) Rules, 1994, frames by Central Government under section 35 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

"Rule 7. Application fee.—Every application filed with the Registrar shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 50 (Rupees fifty only) which shall be paid in Court-fee stamp affixed on the application:

Provided that when the Tribunal permits a single- application to fulfill, either by more than one person, or by an Association, the fee payable shall be rupees fifty."[1]

"Rule 8(3).—An applicant, subsequent to the filing of an application under section 19, apply for an interim order or direction. Such an application shall, as far as possible, be in the same form as is prescribed for an application under section 19 and shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 2 (Rupees two) which shall be payable in Court-fee stamps affixed on such application."

Vakalatnama.—Proviso to rule 9 of said the rule says.—Provided that where an application is filed by an advocate, it shall be accompanied by or duly executed Vakalatnama. No fee filing Vakalatnama was prescribed therein, but in practice a Vakalatnama is required to be filed with a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 5 on the analogy that the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal is an effective substitute of the High Court, in seven months, (as contained in the Administrative Tribunal Act and Rules therein) thus bringing this under article 9, Schedule II of West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970, prescribing Rs. 5 when presented by an Advocate for conduct of any one case to the High Court. This levy of Rs. 5 as Vakalatnama before the State Administrative Tribunal does no longer hold good when viewed in the light of recent decision of the Supreme Court.

Besides West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970 do not provide for any special court-fee before West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, as in the case of Karnataka, where Schedule II, article 16(c), provide for Court-fee of Rs. 3 only (see Appendix I).

Rule - 2. Liability to duty under Court-fees Act of documents presented to Officers of Customs, Income-tax and Salt Departments.

Central Board of Revenue Circular No. 4-F-6-1-Stamps-25 dated Simla, the 15th April, 1925.

The Central Board of Revenue has for some time had under its consideration the question of the liability of various classes of instruments which are presented to officers in the Customs, Income-tax and Salt Departments to duty under Court-fees Act, 1870, and under provincial Acts altering the rates prescribed. The matter has now, been fully considered and the following instructions are issued for the guidance of all officers concerned:—

Schedule I, Article 6.—The documents mentioned in this Article are liable to Court-fees when supplied by officers in the departments named who have to issue orders of which a copy is required.

Schedule I, Article 7.—This does not apply to the officers in the departments named, as no order issued by them can have the force of a decree.

Schedule I, Article 9.—This applies to the proceedings or orders issued by all officers in the departments named.

Schedule II, Article I (a).—Customs officers are specifically mentioned in clause (a) of Article 1. The term "Executive Officer" in paragraph 4 of this clause would cover officers in the Income-tax and Salt Departments.

Schedule II Article I (b).—The only portion of this item that could apply to any officer in the departments concerned is comprised in the words; "Application or petition(b)..................... when presented ...................... to a Collector or any Revenue Officer having jurisdiction equal or subordinate to a Collector.............................and not otherwise provided for by this Act."

The expression "Collector" here used has the meaning defined in section 3(10) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It can, therefore, only apply to officers administering the Income-tax and Salt Act, in so far as that work is performed by District Collectors or by Revenue Officers having jurisdiction equal or subordinate to a Collector. It is true that section 18 of the General Clauses Act would operate if the officials of the said departments could be said to be the successors of District Collectors; but the Board holds that, simultaneously with the passing of the Act that created the separate Income-tax and Salt Departments the whole character of the administration was so changed that it cannot be said that the new officials were the successors in function of District Collectors. Thus, in these departments Article 1(b) does not apply to any officers of the Income-tax and Salt Departments although it will apply to District Collectors and Revenue officers having jurisdiction equal or subordinate to them, so long as they exercise the powers of Income-tax or Salt Revenue officials by special appointment. The Board further holds that if and when such extraordinary appointments are terminated and the work of the department is done through the agency of the ordinary officials, it would not be correct to treat such officials as the successors in function of District Collectors.

Schedule II, Article I(c).—Under the Sea Customs Act of 1878 and the Income-tax Act of 1922, the Central Board of Revenue is a "Chief Controlling Executive Authority" and under the Salt Act of 1882, the Commissioner of Northern India Salt Revenue is a "Chief Controlling Executive Authority". Under the former Acts no Chief Commissioner, Chief Controlling Revenue Authority or Commissioner of Revenue or Circuit or Chief Officer charged with the executive administration of a division intervenes; nor does such intervention occur under the Salt Act save by extraordinary arrangement. The remarks made by the Salt Act save by extraordinary arrangement. The remarks made by the Board on the question whether officials of these departments are successors in function to Collectors apply mutatis mutandis to the case of Revenue Commissioners, etc.

Schedule II, Articles 10(a) and 11(a).—The term "Executive Officer" mentioned in these Articles would cover all Customs. Income-tax and Salt officials.

Schedule II, Article 10(b).—This will have no application, of remarks on Article (c) of the same Schedule. The appointment of Commissioner of Customs has ceased to exist.

Schedule II, Articles 10(c) and 11(b).—These apply to the Central Board of Revenue or Commissioner of Northern India, Salt Revenue, as the case may be of remarks on Article 1(c).

Schedule II, Item 17.-This does not apply to the officers in these departments as they do not try any suits.

Applications for refund of Income-tax under section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, are applications for payment of money due by Government to the applicants. They are, therefore, exempt under clause (xx) of section 19 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, from the payment of Court-fees. Similarly, applications for refund of customs duty or salt duty are not chargeable with Court-fees.