http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10

PETITIONER:

COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENTCOMMERCIAL TAXES AND

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

SREE MURUGAN FINANCING CORPORATION COIMBATOREAND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/04/1992

BENCH:

FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

BENCH:

FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:

1992 AIR 1383 1992 SCR (2) 735

1992 SCC (3) 488 JT 1992 (3) 591

1992 SCALE (1)900

ACT:

Tamil Nadu Chit Fund Rules, 1964 :

Rule 42-Appendix II-Articles 1 and 8-A.

: Chit Fund--Enhancement of fees for registration

of bye-laws--Levy of fees for filing audited and certified

Balance sheets--Validity of--Held levy of fees has live

nexus with expenditure incurred for benefit of "chit fund"--

Levy held valid.

'Tax' and 'fee'--Distinction between--What is.

HEADNOTE:

Under the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act, 1961 no person can

start or conduct any chit unless he registers with the

Registrar the proposed bye-laws of the chit. An application

for registration of bye-laws is to be accompanied by fees

set out in Appendix II of the Tamil Nadu Chit Fund Rules,

1967. Article 1 of Appendix II was amended and the fees

payable for registration of bye-laws of the chit was

enhanced. Simultaneously Article 8-A was inserted by which

fees for filing audited and certified balance sheet by the

chartered Accountants was levied.

The respondents challenged the validity of the

amendments on the ground that the rates of fees fixed in

Article 1 and Article 8-A were disproportionately high

having no nexus to the nature of service rendered and the

levy was in fact not a fee but a tax.

The High Court of Madras struck down the amendments

holding that (i) the necessary element of quit pro quo was

absent; (ii) the number of the subscribers or the

installments to the chit has no nexus with the registration

fee, and (iii) that since no scrutiny or examination of

balance sheets was required to be done under the Rules

therefore no expenditure

736

need be incurred and as such no fees could be levied for

that purpose. Against the decision of the High Court appeals

were filed in this Court.

Allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgment of

the High Court, this Court,

HELD : 1. The enhanced fee is justified on the legal as

well as the factual anvil of quid pro quo. Apart from the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10

appointment of Registrar, its staff and various other

functionaries, the scheme of the Act in its operation

involves huge expenditure which is entirely met out of the

Fee-fund. The fees collected under the Act have, therefore,

live nexus with the expenditure incurred for the benefit of

the "chit fund" business. [746 G-H, 747 A]

2. The scheme of the Act and the Rules shows that there

is effective supervision and control at every stage of the

functioning of the "chit fund" business. The High Court

grossly erred in holding that the number of the subscribers

or the instalments has no nexus with the registration fee.

Every subscriber has to enter into an agreement with the

Foreman who conducts the business on behalf of the proprie-

tors. The object of the Act and Rules obviously is to pro-

tect the interest of the subscribers. More the subscribers

more burden on the authorities and as a consequence more fee

is required to meet the expenditure. [745 G-H, 746 A]

It is no doubt correct that after registration of bye-

laws fees are payable under Section 53 of the Act for the

performance of various other functions by the Registrar and

his staff, but that is justified in view of the scheme of

the Act. The expectation of winning a draw or a bid at the

auction and becoming rich over-night lures the lower-middle

class and the poor to subscribe to the chit fund out of

their savings or even by borrowing money. In such a

situation apart from regulatory measures it is necessary to

have strict control and supervision over the "chit fund"

business. The Act and the Rules are operating with that

objective. [746 A-C]

3. It cannot be said that it was not required under the

Rules to scrutinise and investigate the contents of the

balance sheets submitted through the chartered accountants

and as such it was not necessary to do so and that since no

scrutiny or examination of balance-sheets was required to be

done, no expenditure need be incurred and as such no fee for

that purpose could be levied. The registrar is justified

rather duty-bound to act in furtherance of the objects of

the Act and the Rules. Even otherwise when

737

the Rules provide for filing of balance-sheets by the

Chartered Accountants, it is necessary in the context of the

rules and the Act to provide machinery to examine and verify

the contents of the balance-sheets. No fault can be found

with the reasons given by the State for bringing in Article

8-A in Appendix II to the Rules. The High Court fell into

error in quashing the impugned amendments. [747 F-H, 748 A,

746 H]

Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab, [1979] 3 SCR

1217; Sreenivasa General Traders and Ors. v. State of Andhra

Pradesh and Ors., [1983] 4 SCC 353; Commissioner of Hindu

Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirthya

Swamiyar, [1954] SCR 1005; H.H Sudhandara v. Commissioner

for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, [1963] Suppl.

2 SCR 302; Hingir Rampur Coal Co Ltd. and Anr. v. State of

Orissa and Anr., [1961] 2 SCR 537; H.H.Swamiji v.

Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

Department and Anr., [1980] 1 SCR 368; Southern

Pharmaceuticals chemicals Trichur and Ors. etc. v. State of

Kerala and Ors, etc., [1982] 1 SCR 519, referred to.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr. v. Mohd. Yaseen

etc., [1983] 2 SCR 999, relied on.

JUDGMENT:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 582 to

625 of 1988.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.3.1985 of the

Madras High Court in W.P. Nos. 9471, 9472, 9615, 9616, 9668,

9669, 9670, 9671, 9809, 10067, 10082, 10083, 10297, 10391,

10397, 10400, 10430, 10461, 10547, of 1982, W-P Nos. 73, 74,

75, 655, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1714, 1802, 1939, 1970, 1971,

2504, 2519, 2520, 3446, 3447, 3448, 3449, 3752, 3764 and

7767 of 1983 and W.P.Nos. 573, 1426, 6093, of 1984.

V. Krishnamurthy and V.R. Karthikeyan for the

Appellants.

K.V. Mohan, Smitha Singh and Chari for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

FATHIMA BEEVI, J. These appeals arise out of the common

judgment of the Madras High Court in a batch of writ

petitions in which the respondents challenged the validity

of the amendments effected to Article 1 and insertion of

Article 8-A to Appendix II of the Tamil Nadu Chit Fund

738

Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Rules'). The High Court in its

judgment dated 20.3.1985 has struck down as invalid the

impugned amendments.

The Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act, 1961 (The Act) provides

for the regulation of chit funds in the State of Tamil Nadu.

'chit' is a transaction by which its foreman enters into an

agreement with a number of subscribers that every one of

them shall subscribe certain sum by installments for a defi-

nite period and that each subscriber in his turn as deter-

mined by lot or by auction, shall be entitled to a prize

amount. The sum total of the subscription payable by all the

subscribers for any installment of a chit without any deduc-

tion for discount or otherwise is chit amount.

It is useful to summarise the scheme of the Act and the

rules. The Registrar of chit funds is appointed by the

Government under section 51. No person can start or conduct

any chit unless he registers with the Registrar the proposed

bye-laws of the chit. Section 7 provides that the Registrar,

on being satisfied that the bye-laws have been registered,

the chit agreement has been filed, and the security required

under section 12 has been furnished by the foreman, grants

"certificate of commencement". The auction or drawing of any

chit commences only on obtaining such certificate. The

security furnished under section 12 can only he released by

Registrar in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Under section 16 every foreman has to prepare and file

with the registrar a duly audited balance-sheet. The

defaulting non-prized subscriber is liable to be removed and

the aggrieved person has a right of appeal to the Registrar

whose order in the matter is final. Any substitution in

place of a defaulting subscriber has to be recorded and copy

filed with the Registrar. The rights of the prized or non-

prized subscribers in the chit cannot be transferred or

interfered with without the previous sanction in writing of

the Registrar. The foreman is required to maintain all the

records pertaining to a chit for a specified period. The

Registrar is empowered under section 37 to inspect the chit

books and all records after giving due notice. If the Regis-

trar is of the opinion that the accounts of any chit are not

properly maintained and that such account should be audited,

it shall be lawful for him under section 51(4) to have such

account audited by a chit auditor. The foreman has a right

of appeal against the order of the Registrar refusing to

register bye-laws or to grant a certificate of commencement

or refuse to accept the security or refusing to release the

739

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10

property charged by way of security as provided under

section 54. Penalty for the contravention of the provisions

is provided under section 56.

The provisions of the Act impose duties on the

Registrar and are intended to regulate the conduct of the

business. The registrar has to take adequate security and

keep the same intact until the claims of all subscribers are

satisfied and till the termination of the chit, the Regis-

trar is required to discharge several duties.

Section 63 empowers the Government to make rules for

carrying out all or any of the purposes of the Act. Section

53 which provides for levy of fees reads:-

"53. (1) There shall be paid to the Registrar such

fees as the Government may from time to time,

prescribe for-

(a) the registration of the bye-laws of a chit

under section 3;

(b) the grant of a certificate of commencement

under section 7;

(c) filing with the Registrar of the chit

agreement and copies of documents under section 11,

20, 21, 29 and 32;

(d) the inspection of documents under section

52;

(e) the certificate, copy of or extract of

documents under section 52;

(f) the audit of accounts of the foreman and

the issue of an audit certificate;

(g) such other matters as may appear necessary

to give effect to the purposes of this Act.

(2) A table of fees payable under sub-section

(1) shall be published in the Fort St. George

Gazette." (Now the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette).

The Rules have been framed under section 63. Rule 3

states that the bye-laws shall provide for the matters

specified thereunder. If the Registrar refuses to the regis-

ter the bye-laws of a chit, he shall record his reasons

740

for such refusal in writing and communicate a copy of the

order to the applicant. Rule 11 prescribes the particulars

to be contained in the chit agreement, rule 14 prescribes

the form of minute of the proceedings and rules 15 to 22

regulate the acceptance and release of security. In the case

of cash deposited in an approved bank and transferred in

favour of Registrar, intimation has to be given by the

Registrar to the bank. Under rule 22 the Registrar before

releasing the security may call upon the foreman to produce

register and books of accounts maintained and issue a notice

to the subscribers. Registrar has to hear objections, if

any, and inquire into the same and record the decision in

writing. On the application of the foreman, the Registrar

shall cause the balance-sheet and profit and loss account to

be audited by the chit auditor as expeditiously as possible.

Rule 42 states that the fees payable to the Registrar for

the matters specified under section 53 shall be as set out

in Appendix II and shall be paid in cash. Appendix II con-

tains the table of fees for the registration of bye-laws of

chit under section 3 as Article 1 and for the audit of

accounts under sub-section (4) of section 51 as Article 8.

The impugned amendments are to the following effect:-

AMENDMENT

In the said Rules, in Appendix II, in the Table of

fees (1) for Article I and the entries relating

thereto, the following Article and entries shall

be substituted, namely:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10

1. For the Registration of bye-laws of a chit

under section 3.

Rates of Fees.

(a)for chits for a term of Re.1 per subscriber or install-

less than one year Rs. 1 ment which ever is higher

(b) for chits for a term of subject to a minimum of Rs.50

one year and above per subscriber or instalment

Re.2.50 whichever is higher subject to

a minimum of Rs.50

(i) chit amount of value up per subscriber or instalemnt

to Rs.5,000 Rs.5 which ever is higher subject to a

minimum of Rs. 50

741

(ii) for chit amount of Per subscriber or instalment which-

value between Rs. ever is higher subject to a minimum

5,001 and Rs.10,000 Rs.50

Rs.5

(iii)for chit amount of Per subscriber or instalment which-

value between Rs. ever is higher subject to a minimum

10,000 and Rs20,000 of Rs.50

Rs.5

(iv) for chit amount of Per subscriber or instalment which-

value between Rs. ever is higher subject to a minimum

20,000 and Rs30,000 of Rs.50

Rs.10

(v) for chit amount of Per subscriber or instalment which-

value between Rs. ever is higher subject to a minimum

30,001 and Rs40,000 of Rs.50

Rs.12

(vi) for chit amount of Per subscriber or instalment which-

value between Rs. ever is higher subject to a minimum

40,001 and Rs50,000 of RS.50

Rs.15

(vii)for chit amount of Per subscriber or instalment which-

value exceeding Rs. ever is higher subject to a minimum

50,000 Rs.20 of Rs.50

(2).......

(3) after Article 8, as so amended, the following

Article and entries shall be inserted, namely:-

"8A. For filing Balance-sheets audited and certified by

Charted Accountant.

(a) When the chit amount does not exceed Rs.500-Rs.10.00

(b) When the chit amount exceeds Rs.500 for the first

Rs.500 as under sub-clause (a) and for every Rs.500 or

part thereof in excess of Rs.500 subject to the maximum

of Rs.250. The fee leviable under this clause shall not

exceed Rs.250".

The challenge was mainly on the ground that the rates

of fees fixed in article 1 and Article 8-A in Appendix II to

the Rules were disproportionately high having no nexus to

the nature of services rendered and

742

intended to augment revenue and partake character of tax and

as such the levy suffered from the vice of arbitrariness,

hostile discrimination and unreasonable restriction on

trade. The High Court came to the conclusion that the

necessary element of quid pro quo was absent and as such

struck down the amendment on the said ground.

The High Court declared the amendment by which the

registration fee was enhanced, as ultra vires, on the

following reasoning:-

"When a Foreman starts a chit, under section 3 he

has to apply for registration of the bye-laws. It

is only there after, he can approach the subscriber

and get the chit agreements as prescribed under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10

Section 5 executed and file them under Section 6.

He cannot commence the business till he secures the

certificate under section 7(2). Therefore, when an

application is made for registration of bye-laws,

at that stage, section 3(3) authorises the Regis-

trar to find out as to whether the bye-laws are in

accord with the provisions of the Act or the rules

made thereunder. As to what the bye-laws should

provide, Rule 3 enumerates them. An application for

registration is to be in Form No.1 accompanied by

fees set out in Appendix II. Hence, the number of

the subscribers or the instalments, has no nexus

with what are required to be done under section

3(3) by the Registrar. Whether they are more or

less, it was only a question of furnishing particu-

lars and recording them and no more. If for the

entire period of the chit except the registration

fee no other fee is demanded and the entire serv-

ices rendered is covered by this demand alone, then

the correlation claimed could be available. Section

53 enables imposition of fees in respect of almost

each one of the subsequent stages of the conduct of

the chit whenever the authorities are to be ap-

proached or they are to exercise their powers. In

the context of such provisions having been made in

the Act, the registration fees claimed has to be

restricted to what are required to be done under

section 3(3)."

The High Court held Article 8-A to be invalid on the

following reasoning:-

743

"When rules themselves do not contemplate produc-

tion of registers, books of accounts and other

records, the claim made that pursuant to the filing

of the balance-sheet, records have to be verified

and that the whole matter has got to be thoroughly

examined is unacceptable. In such of those matters

where irregularities are noticed, the Registrar can

call for all the records and scrutinise them and

thereafter initiate prosecution or take such other

action. Such instances would arise in both catego-

ries. Hence, when the rules themselves contemplate

a different type services to be rendered when

Chartered Accountant's Certificates are filed, the

fee impossable under Article 8-A cannot be the same

as in Article 8 which contemplates more comprehen-

sive services to be rendered. Therefore as rightly

pleaded by the petitioners, the necessary element

of quid pro quo is not existing and furthermore

this is an unreasonable restriction on right of

trade and the rate fixed is aimed at increasing

general revenues."

The High Court relied upon the judgment of this Court

in Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab, [1979] 3 SCR 1217

wherein it was observed that a substantial portion of the

amount collected on account of fees, must be shown with

reasonable certainty as being spent for rendering services

to justify the quid pro quo which is a distinguishing

feature of "fee" from "tax".

This Court in sreenivasa General Traders & others v.

State of Andhra Pradesh & others [1983] 4 SCC 353 considered

Kewal Krishan Puri's case and observed as under:-

"The decision in Kewal Krishan Puri case does not

lay down any legal principle of general applicabil-

ity. The observation made therein seeking to quan-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10

tify the extent of correlation between the amount

of fee collected and the cost of rendition of

service, namely, "At least a good and substantial

portion of the amount collected on account of fees,

may be in the neighbourhood of two-thirds or three-

fourths, must be shown with reasonable certainty as

being spent for rendering services in the market to

the payer of fee", appears to be an obiter. It was

not intended to lay down a rule of universal appli-

cation but it

744

was a decision which must be confined to the spe-

cial facts of that case."

This Court in several judgments over a period of 40

years has authoritatively crystalised the contradistinction

between "tax" and "fee". The judgments of this Court in

Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri

Lakshmindra Thirthya Swaminyar, [1954] SCR 1005; H.H. sud-

handara v. Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable

Endowments, [1963] Suppl. 2 SCR 302; Hingir Rampur Coal Co.

Ltd. & another v. State of Orissa & another, [1961] 2 SCR

537; H.H. Swamiji v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowment Department & another, [1980] 1 SCR 368

and southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Trichur & Others

etc. v. State of Kerala and Others etc., [1982] SCR 519 were

considered by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi

and another v. Mohd. Yaseen etc., [1983] 2 SCR 999 wherin

the Court speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J held as

under:-

" What do we learn from these precedents? We learn

that there is no generic difference between a tax

and a fee, though broadly a tax is a compulsory

exaction as part of a common burden, without prom-

ise of any special advantages to classes of taxpay-

ers whereas a fee is a payment for services ren-

dered, benefit provided or privilege conferred.

Compulsion is not the hallmark of the distinction

between a tax and a fee. That the money collected

does not go into a separate fund but goes into the

consolidated fund does not also necessarily make a

levy a tax. Though a fee must have relation to the

services rendered, or the advantages conferred,

such relation need not be direct: a mere causal

relation may be enough. Further, neither the inci-

dence of the fee nor the service rendered need be

uniform. That others besides those paying the fees

are also benefited does not detract from the char-

acter of the fee. In fact the special benefit or

advantage to the payers of the fees may even be

secondary as compared with the primary motive of

regulation in the public interest. Nor is the Court

to assume the role of a cost accountants. It is

neither necessary nor expedient to weight too

meticulously the cost of the services rendered etc.

against the amount of fees collected so as to

evenly balance the

745

two. A broad correlationship is all that is neces-

sary. Quid Pro Quo in the strict sense is not the

one and only true index of a fee; nor is it neces-

sarily absent in a tax."

In Mohd. Yaseen's case the Municipal Corporation of

Delhi enhanced the slaughtering fee is respect of two cate-

gories of animals by eight fold. Some Butchers of the city

questioned the revision of rates on the ground that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10

proposed enhanced fee was wholly disproportionate to the

cost of services and supervision and was in fact not a fee,

but a tax. During the pendency of the writ petitions in the

High Court, by virtue of an interim arrangement, the Munici-

pal Corporation of Delhi was permitted to collect slaughter

fee at double the rates (instead of 8 times) and as a result

thereof the Corporation realised a sum of Rs. 4,24,494. The

budget of the Corporation showed a sum of Rs. 2,56,000 as

the expenditure involved in connection with the slaughter

house. The High Court came to the conclusion that even if

the original fee was doubled the amount realised would be

more than sufficient to meet the expenditure involved and,

therefore, there was no reason at all for increasing fee

eight fold and so the proposed fee was not fee but a tax for

which there is no legislative mandate. This Court allowed

the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court.

This Court clarified the concept of "fee" which we have

quoted above. We respectfully agree with the same.

The Act and the Rules provide complete mechanism for

the control, supervision and regulation of the "chit fund"

business in the State of Tamil Nadu. No person can start or

conduct any "chit" unless he registers the proposed bye-laws

in accordance with the procedure prescribed. It is common

knowledge that there are large number of subscribers to the

"chit fund" business. The Act and the Rules primarily

protect the subscribers and in the process help the

proprietors to run the "chit fund" business to their

advantage. There are elaborate provisions under the Act and

the Rules providing investigation into the functioning of

the said business. The scheme of the Act and the Rules as

detailed in the earlier part of the judgment shows that

there is effective supervision and control at every stage of

the functioning of the "chit fund" business. The High Court

grossly erred in holding that the number of the subscribers

or the instalments has no nexus with the registration fee.

Every subscriber has to enter into an agreement with the

Foreman who conducts the business on behalf of the

746

proprietors. The object of the Act/Rules obviously is to

protect the interest of the subscribers. More the subscrib-

ers more burden on the authorities under the Act/Rules and

as a consequence more fee is required to meet the expendi-

ture. It is no doubt correct that after registration of bye-

laws fees are payable under Section 53 of Act for the per-

formance of various other functions by the Registrar and his

staff, but that is justified in view of the scheme of the

Act. The expectation of winning a draw or a bid at the

auction and becoming rich over-night lures the lower-middle

class and the poor to subscribe to the chit fund out of

their savings or even by borrowing money. In such a situa-

tion apart from regulatory measures it is necessary to have

strict control and supervision over the "chit fund" busi-

ness. The Act and the Rules are operating with that objec-

tive. The counter affidavit filed by the State before the

High Court justified the enhancement of the registration fee

inter alia on the following grounds:-

".....Considering that in respect of chits of

longer duration and larger number of instalments,

greater amount of service had to be rendered in

that, more minutes etc., were filed, it is equita-

ble and fair to fix the fees for registration of

bye-laws with regard to number of instalments of

duration of chits. The fees were revised taking

these facts into consideration. It has also to be

verified whether the foreman has taken proper

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10

security for future payment of subscription from

the prized subscriber, whether proper receipts were

obtained for the payment of prize monies and on due

dates, if not whether the prize amount has been

deposited in a Bank as required by the Act by

verifying receipts of deposit etc. The extracts

filed in respect of removal, substitution and

assignment etc. have also to be verified and in

respect of higher chit amounts in long term chits

for longer duration these transactions will be more

and they impose greater responsibility on the Chit

Registrar. The work connected with watching the

filing of various documents by the Foreman on the

due dates and in proper form also takes considera-

ble time....."

We are of the view that the High Court fell into error

in quashing the impugned Amendments. The enhanced fee, in

this case, is justified on the legal as well as the factual

anvil of quid pro quo. Apart from the

747

appointment of Registar, its staff and various other func-

tionaries, the scheme of the Act in its operation involves

huge expenditure which is entirely met out of the Fee-Fund .

The fees collected under the Act have therefore, live nexus

with the expenditure incurred for the benefit of the "chit

fund"business.

To justify Article 8-A prescribing fee for filing

balance sheets by the chartered accountants it was stated as

under:

"......I submit that pursuant to the filing of the

balance-sheet records have to be verified. The

balance-sheet has also got to be examined in detail

to find out whether it is in conformity with the

objects of the chit and also whether the figures

tally with regard to the collections and payments

of Prize amount and whether the Prize amount also

correctly reflects the scope of each chit and

whether the commission of the foreman has been

correctly worked out. In short, the whole matter

has got to be thoroughly examined to see whether

that Particular years' transactions fully reflects

the scope of each chit and whether the collections

and disbursements including the commission retained

by the foreman have all been done in conformity

with the Act and the Rules,since it is the sub-

scriber's interest which is paramount. I submit

that all these involve the services of the staff of

the office of the Registar".

The High Court was wholly unjustified in rejecting the

above quoted reasoning for levying fee under Article 8-A.

The High Court reached the conclusion that it was not re-

quired under the rules to scrutinise and investigate the

contents of the balance sheets submitted through the char-

tered accountants and as such it was not necessary to do so.

The High Court further found that since no scrutiny or

examination of balance-sheets was required to be done, no

expenditure need be incurred and as such no fee for the

purpose could be levied. We do not agree with the High Court

reasoning. The Registrar is justified rather duty-bound to

act in furtherance of the objects of the Act and the Rules.

Even otherwise when the Rules provide for filling of the

balance sheets by the Chartered Accountants, it is necessary

in the context of the rules and the Act to provide machinery

to examine and verify the contents of the balance-sheets. No

fault can be found with the reasons given by the State for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10

bringing in Article 8-A in

748

Appendix II to the Rules.

We, therefore, allow the civil appeals and set aside

the judgment of the Madras High Court dated March 20,1985 .

The writ Petitions filed by the respondents-Petitioners are

dismissed with costs. We quantify the costs as Rs. 20,000 to

be paid jointly by all the respondents-petitioners in these

cases.

T.N.A. Appeals allowed.

749