ORDER
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment of this Court dated the 30th November, 1956.
2. By that order the Court directed the issue of a writ quashing the order of assessment dated respectively the 19th July, 1952, and the 17th March, 1953, made upon the respondent under the U. P. Sales-tax Act, 1948. The Sales-tax authorities now ask for leave to appeal from that order to the Supreme Court
3. We do not consider it necessary, for reasons which we shall shortly state, to consider whether this is a fit case in which leave should be granted, or whether the proceedings are civil proceedings within the meaning of Clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution. The amount sought to be recovered from the respondent is only Rs. 2,150/-. The application is opposed on the ground, inter alia, that as the amount involved in the appeal is small it would be oppressive if the Court granted leave and involved the respondent firm in the cost of contesting the case in the Supreme Court. In our view this submission should be upheld. As Lord Langdale said in Richard Spooner v. Juddow, 4 Moo Ind App 359 (PO) (A) :
"The question appears to be of very considerable importance; but you observe that the amount at issue is only a sum of 250 rupees, and for the purpose of deciding that, you put the Respondent to the expense of this appeal, The question is, whether this prosecution being by the East India Company, and no doubt important to have decided, for the benefit of the whole country, the whole expense of this appeal should not be borne by them. However important it may be to establish the law, upon a question of this kind, it would be very wrong to put the party to so great expense in a case where so small amount is at issue."
During the course of the hearing we intimated to learned Counsel who appeared for the applicant that this was in any event not a case in which, in our opinion, leave should be granted unless the State Government was prepared to pay the costs to be incurred by the respondent firm. We indicated that in our opinion the State Government should agree to pay, in any event, the costs, charges and expenses incurred by or on behalf of the respondent firm as taxed by the Supreme Court. Learned counsel was not prepared on behalf of the applicant to give an undertaking to this effect and in these circumstances we are of opinion that the application should be refused. It is accordingly rejected.