Saju K. Abrham Vs. Ito

counsels: smt. k. latha for the assessee p.k.r. menon, george k. george and smt. vaheeda babu for the revenue. head note: income tax legal representative--authorisationleviability of court feepetitioner sought certain relief in respect of court fee leviable on an authorisation to be produced before the ao to represent an assessee. the court fee requested to be affixed on such authorization is only re. 1. held:the authorization is an instrument empowering person so authorized to act on behalf of and in name of one executing that authorization and as such, it shall have all trappings of a power of attorney defined in section 2(p) of kerala stamp act, 1959, therefore, stamp duty of rs. 50 was leviable under article 44. income tax act, 1961 s.160 kerala stamp act, 1959 sch. to art. 44 in the kerala high court k.a. abdul gafoor & k.k. denesan, jj. - - 28900/2000 seeking certain reliefs in respect of court fee leviable on an authorization like ext. 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 authorizations like ext. 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 authorization. it was found that the instrument like ext.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 authorization like ext. p 1 to be produced before the assessing officer under the income tax act, to represent an assessee. the authorization 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 authorization is only rs. 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 authorizations like ext. p 1.2. therefore, none of the reliefs sought for in the o.p. could be granted and the o.p. had been rightly dismissed.3. 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 authorization. the content of the authorization reveals that it authorizes a particular person to represent another before an authority. therefore, it is an instrument empowering the person so authorized to act on behalf of and in the name of the one executing that authorization. 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. p 1 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 authorization 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.