Saju K. Abraham vs Income Tax Officer

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.—Writ Petitioner is the appellant. He filed O.P.28900/2000 seeking certain reliefs in respect of court fee leviable on an authorisation like Ext.P1 to be produced before the Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act, to represent an assessee. The authorisation is to be filed by a Chartered Accountant or an Income Tax Practitioner, not being an Advocate. Even admittedly by the counsel, the court fee asked to be affixed on such authorisation is only Re. 1/-. That is permissible in terms of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Therefore, there arises no question of any direction being issued with regard to the levy of court fee on authorisations like Ext.P1.

Therefore, none of the reliefs sought for in the O.P. could be granted and the O.P. had been rightly dismissed.

The averments in the O.P. reveals that persons like the petitioner are asked that stamp duty required in terms of Article 44 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 shall be affixed on such authorisation. The content of the authorisation reveals that it authorises a particular person to represent another before an authority. Therefore, it is an instrument-empowering the person so authorised to act on behalf of and in the name of the one executing that authorisation. Necessarily it shall have all the trappings of a power of attorney defined in Section 2(p) of the Kerala Stamp Act. Stamp duty in terms of Article 44 is leviable on such an instrument to be produced before an authority. In the connected O.P. disposed of along with the impugned judgment, that was the issue considered. It was found that the instrument like Ext.P1 or Ext.P4 shall be on stamp paper worth Rs. 50/- to empower to act in a single transaction. If it is insisted that the authorisation shall be on stamp paper in terms of Article 44 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act, it cannot be said to be a faulty insistence.

Writ Appeal fails. Dismissed.