Manohar Wadhwani vs Bank of Baroda

Sushil Harkauli, J.

We have heard both sides.

An application to set aside an ex-parte order of DRT was rejected by the DRT. The Petitioner who had made that application filed an appeal. The appeal purports to have been filed u/s 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

Even in this writ petition learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to show that the appeal would be maintainable under any other provision of Act except u/s 20 of the Act.

Rule 8 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1994 is relevant for the purpose of fee payable on a memorandum of appeal preferred u/s 20 of the Act. This Rule has been made u/s 36(2)(d) of the Act, which says that the Rules may provide for the fees payable in respect of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal u/s 20 of the Act.

For ready reference the said Rule 8 is reproduced below:

Rule 8 Fee: - (1) Every memorandum of appeal u/s 20 of the Act shall be accompanied with a fee provided in Sub-rule (2) and such fee may be remitted either in the form of crossed demand draft drawn on a nationalized bank in favour of the Registrar and payable at the station where the Registrar''s office is situated or remitted through a crossed Indian postal Order drawn in favour of the Registrar and payable in Central Post Office of the station where the Appellate Tribunal is located.

(2) The amount of fee payable in respect of appeal u/s 20 shall be as follows:

Amount of debt due Amount of fees payable

I. Less than Rupees 10 lakhs ? Rupees 12,000

Rupees 10 lakhs or more Rupees 30 Lakhs Rupees 20,000

Rupees 30 lakhs or more Rupees 30,000

Court Fee is a tax, and a law imposing tax has to be applied, by the letter of that law. There is no scope of any kind of intendment or notions of equity or sympathy or hardship while interpreting taxing statutes. When the relevant statutory Rule says that a certain amount of tax is payable, and if the case falls within the four comers of such statutory Rule, the amount of tax mentioned in the statutory Rule is payable.

On the other hand if a case does not fall within the four corners of the taxing statute, there is no question of levying any tax by any kind of intendment. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the decision of the DRAT Allahabad in the case of I (2006) BC 228 and a decision of DRAT Delhi in the case of III (2004) BC 123

We have examined both the decisions and we are unable to agree. It appears that the basic principles of interpretation and applying of taxing statutes have been ignored by both the DRAT Allahabad and DRAT Delhi, on some kind of sympathetic or equitable considerations.

We do not find any error in the impugned order of DRAT, which is under challenge in this writ petition, and which has applied the above quoted Rule 8 by virtue of its express words and has demanded the fee prescribed under that Rule on the appeal preferred by the writ Petitioner u/s 20 of the Act.

There is no force in this writ petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.