Devan Ramachandran, J

1. There is only one issue for consideration on its merits in these revisions; and, therefore, have been heard together, thus being disposed of through this judgment.

2. The essential facts, stripped of all unnecessary details, are that the respondent in both these matters suffered an assessment under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KVAT Act,' for short); and they filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, by paying the additional court fee as mandated under Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees And Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act,' for short)— towards the ''Legal Benefit Fund''.

3. The statutory First Appellate Authority allowed the appeals and remitted the matter to the Assessing Authority; but, at that time, concededly, the respondent did not seek refund of the court fee paid.

4. Thereafter, the Assessing Authority passed a fresh assessment order, against which, the respondent preferred another appeal before the First Appellate Authority. However, the said appeal has now been rejected on the ground that the additional court fee, under the ''Legal Benefit Fund'' has not been paid.

5. Against this order, the respondent filed appeals before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal,' for short), thus compelling the petitioner herein, the State of Kerala, to approach this Court.

6. Even though various allegations, assertions, and averments have been made and urged before us, it is uncontestable that the controversies arising herein stand fully addressed and answered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Hamaza Haji v. Thykkandiyil Ibrahim [2021 (6) KHC 801].

7. The learned Division Bench, after assessing the ambit and impact of Section 76 of the ''Act'', held, without leaving any room for doubt, as follows:

                  ''5. For clearly understanding the dispute, we shall extract Section 76 of the Act,

                  "76. Legal Benefit Fund.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force and subject to Section 4A of the Act and sub rule (1) of Rule 397 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 it shall be competent for the Government to levy an additional court fee by notification in the Gazette, in respect of original petitions, original applications, appeals or revisions to Tribunals, appellate authorities and original suits in Civil Courts other than in Family Court at a rate not exceeding one percent of the amount involved in the dispute and in other cases at a rate not exceeding one hundred rupees for each original suit, original petition, original application, appeal or revision.

                  Explanation.--The term 'amount involved in the dispute' as specified in sub-section (1), where it is capable of valuation, does not include the amount of valuation for the purpose of court fee, in suits for recovery of possession, partition and suits of similar nature and where fixed court fee is specified under this Act.

                  (2) There shall be constituted a Legal Benefit Fund to which shall be credited.

                  (i) the proceeds of the additional Court fee levied and collected under sub-section (1);

                  (ii) fifty per cent of the Court-fees levied and collected on mukhtarnama or vakalatnama under Article 16 of Schedule II of this Act.

                  (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an amount equal to seventy per cent of the Legal Benefit Fund collected under sub-section (2) shall be set apart every year towards the Fund constituted under Section 3 of the Kerala Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1980 and an amount equal to thirty percent of the Legal Benefit Fund collected shall be set apart towards the fund constituted under Section 3 of the Kerala Advocates' Clerks Welfare Fund Act, 2003.

                  Provided that the amount so set apart shall be transferred to such Funds after retaining an amount equal to ten per cent each from the amount set apart to the Funds specified in sub-section (3) for providing  infrastructure  to  the  litigants.

                  (4) The mode and manner in which legal service to the people may be made more efficient and social security measures for legal profession may be provided, shall be as prescribed by rules made by Government."

                  6. This provision was introduced in the Act by the Kerala Finance Act, 2016 (18 of 2016) published in Kerala Gazette Ext. No. 1960 dated 13-11-2016 and it came into force w.e.f. 1-4-2016. In fact, the newly introduced provision has the effect of substituting the then existing provision. Prior to substitution, earlier provision in Section 76 of the Act was to the effect that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law for the time being in force, it shall be competent for the Government to levy an additional court fee,by notification in the Gazette, in respect of original petitions, original applications, appeals or revisions to tribunals or appellate authorities, other than Civil and Criminal Courts, at a rate not exceeding one per cent of the amount involved in the dispute in cases where it is capable of valuation and in other cases at a rate not exceeding one hundred rupees for each original petition, original application, appeal or revision.

                  7. On a perusal of the existing provision vis-à-vis. the earlier provision, it will be clear that the legislature thought it fit to collect additional court fee in respect of original suits in Civil Courts, other than in Family Courts, at a rate not exceeding one per cent of the amount involved in the dispute. That appears to be the definite intention for effecting the change. On a careful reading of the existing provision, it can be seen that the Legislature never intended to collect additional court fee payable to the legal benefit fund, when a decree in an original suit is challenged before an appellate court. In other words, we find no reason to infer that additional court fee payable to the legal benefit fund has to be collected at different levels of the same litigation. The indications are very clear that it shall be collected only once, that too at the inception of the suit before a Civil Court. We still find the exclusion of Criminal courts from the purview of collecting additional court fee for the purpose of legal benefit fund maintained.''

8. Traveling with the facts of this case, it is pellucid that the respondent had initially approached the First Appellate Authority by paying the additional court fee towards the ''Legal Benefit Fund''. However, upon the said appeal being returned with a remark, the respondent again approached the First Appellate Authority by filing a separate set of appeals.

9. As per Hamaza Haji (supra), obviously, the appeal filed against the 2nd assessment order can only be seen as one underpinned on a fresh cause of action; and hence a new litigation, thus court fee becoming enjoined to be paid.

10. The predicament of the respondent, in our considered view, has arisen only because they have not sought a refund of the court fee paid by them when they initially approached the appellate authority. This is particularly so, when their learned counsel - Sri. Anil Kumar, asserts, relying on the provisions under Section 67 of the 'Act', that, in the event of a remand, the court fees ought to have been ordered to be refunded.

11. We are unable to accept the afore submissions, since one cannot blame the learned Tribunal in not having ordered refund of court fee, in the admitted absence of a request to that effect. It would, however, be open to the respondent to approach the First Appellate Authority in an appropriate manner, should they seek refund of the court fee initially paid by them.

12. As far as the appeals presently pending before the First Appellate Authority are concerned, there can be little doubt that they construe a fresh round of litigation, which attracts the requisite additional court fee towards the ''Legal Benefit Fund''.

13. In such view, the holdings of the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained.

14. Consequently, we allow these revisions and set aside the orders of the learned Tribunal; leaving liberty to the respondent to pay the additional court fee, as attracted in the memorandum of appeals before the First Appellate Authority, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

15. Needless to say, once the requisite court fee is remitted, the appeals shall be considered by the First Appellate Authority on their merits, following due procedure.

As far as the request of Sri Anilkumar, that his clients be given liberty to move the First Appellate Authority for refund of the court fee paid on the initial round of appeals, we leave them liberty as per law and do not intend to speak on it affirmatively.