P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

(e) Interpretation of statutes‑

Fiscal legislation‑To be strictly construed. S. Sharifuddin for Plaintiff. A. Kadir Shaikh for the State. Date of hearing : 16th December 1964. Reference made by the Additional Registrar as Taxing Officer of this Bench, under section 5 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is whether section 35‑A of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as inserted by section 4 of the Court Fees (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962, "repeals, amends or disturbs" the maximum fee of Rs. 10,000 leviable on a plaint under the Sind Court‑fees Act, 1932 (Sind Act No. 11 of 1932) as amended by Sind Act I of 1938 and my answer to it is in the negative. After the Court‑Fees Act was enacted in 1870 it has been locally amended in the Provinces at different times to suit their needs. Schedule I attached to this Act refers to the Rules or principles for determining ad valorem fees and at its end there is a table of rates of ad valorem fees for the purpose of easy reference. Schedule II recited fixed fees. "Ad valorem" means according to the valuation: Thus ad valorem duties are always estimated at a certain per cent on the valuation of the property as q opposed to fixed or specific duties (p.

28. The Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar). It is a Latin phrase and the Bouvier's Law Dictionary (P. 133 Vo1 1, Third revision) defines it as "according to the valuation. Duty may be specific or ad valorem. Ad valorem duties are always estimated at a certain per cent. on the valuation of the property". While the former Province of Sind was still part of the Bombay Presidency, Schedule I was amended by the Bombay Court‑Fees Act, 1932 and the maximum fee leviable on a plaint was fixed at Rs. 10,

000. According to section 2(3) of this Act, this amendment was to remain in operation for a period of 6 years from the date on which this Act came into force. After the separation of Sind from Bombay Presidency in 1936, this Act came to be called the Sind Court‑fees Act, 1932 and before its expiry in 1938, another Act was paused, viz. Sind Fees. (Amendment) Act, 1938 (Sind Act No. I of 1938). Section 2 (1) of this Act lays down that the aforesaid amendment shall continue in force until amended or repealed. Thus present position due to this Sind amendment is that the maximum fee payable on a plaint continues to be Rs. 10,

000. Section 35‑A as inserted by section 4 of ' the Court‑Fees (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962 reads as follows: "Section 35‑A. Variation of rates.‑(I) The ad valorem fees leviable on the institution of suits specified in Schedule I (as amended before the promulgation of the Court Fees (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962, by any Central or Pro vincial Act) shall be reduced by fifteen per centum where the value 'of the subject‑matter exceeds two thousand rupees but does not exceed fifteen thousand rupees ; and shall be increased by fifteen per centum where the value of the subject matter exceeds fifteen thousand rupees. (2) The amount of fee leviable after reduction or increase provided for in subsection (1) shall be calculated to the nearest rupee or half‑rupee, whichever it may be." It simply varies the rates as laid down under Schedule I and does not affect the maximum leviable under it. This maximum limit under the original Act of 1870 is Rs. 3,000 only. It was raised to Rs. 10,000 by Sind Court Fees Act, 1932 as stated above. The position, therefore, before the promulgation of Court‑Fees (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962, in respect of ad valorem fees, leviable on the institution of suits, specified in Schedule 1, as amended by Central or Provincial Act, was, that under the former, the maximum limit was Rs. 3,030 and under the Provincial Act it was Rs. 10,

000. This section 35‑A reduces the rates of ad valorem fees as laid down under Schedule I where the value of the subject‑matter exceeds Rs. 2,000 but does not exceed Rs. 15,000, and it increases where value of the subject‑matter exceeds Rs. 15,000, but does not specifically vary the amount or repeal the maximum limit as laid down, both, under the Central or Provincial Acts. This maximum limit, in both the Acts of 1870 and 1932 is mentioned in proviso to the last para which deals with subject‑matter when its value exceeds Rs. 50,

000. The subject is not to be taxed unless the language of the statute clearly C imposes the obligation. Statutes which impose pecuniary burdens, also, are subject to the same rule of strict construction (p. 278 Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes). As the matter involved important question relating to Court Fees and affected Revenue of State, notice was issued to the Additional Advocate‑General. He has expressed the same view, i.e., section 35‑A does not repeal proviso to last para dealing with subject‑matter when its value exceeds Rs. 50,

000. But under section 5, the Court Fees Act, references of this nature, are to be made by the Taxing Officer to the Chief Justice for final decision "or to such Judge of the High Court as the Chief Justice shall appoint either generally or specially in this behalf". D In this particular case, this reference has been made directly to this Court as by an order of the Senior Judge, I am working one the Original Side and also because such matters could be referred under Chapter II, Part 1, Rules of Sind ‑Chief Court (Original Side) to the Judge working on the Original Side. I am, therefore, of opinion that I am competent to dispose of this reference. For the reasons stated above this reference is accordingly answered in the negative. K.B.A Reference answered.