Judgment :- C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. These Writ Appeals are filed under leave obtained from this court by the appellant which was not a party in the Writ Petition. We have heard Sri. T.A. Shaji, counsel appearing for the appellant, various counsel appearing for the respondents and also the Government Pleader appearing for the State and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. The facts leading to the controversy and the nature of dispute raised are the following. Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter called “the Act”) provides for constitution of a Legal Benefit Fund by the Government and funding of the same through collection of an additional court fee. Even though the said provision was in the statute from 1962 onwards, Government framed Kerala Legal Benefit Fund Rules in exercise of powers conferred on it under sub-section (4) of Section 76 only in 1991. It is much thereafter i.e. in the year 2002, the appellant-trust was created by the Government under Section 76(2) of the Act through SRO No.225/2002. Simultaneous with the creation of the appellant-trust, Government issued order under Section 76(1) of the Act providing for collection of additional court fee at specified rates recoverable for the benefit of the appellant-trust. Both the notifications under sub-section (2) and sub-section (1) above stated creating the appellant-trust fund and providing for collection of additional court fee towards contribution to the Legal Benefit Fund were made effective from 5.4.2002. As a result of these statutory orders issued by the Government, every appeal or revision filed before Tribunals or Appellate/Revisional Authorities other than in civil courts and criminal courts in the State had to carry stamp for the value of the additional court fee stated in the Government Orders above referred, which is at the rate of 0.5% of the amount involved in the dispute wherever it is capable of valuation or otherwise, Rs.50/-. Even though the statutory limit was upto 1% of the amount of dispute involved or Rs.100/- as the case may be, Government while issuing Notification on 5.4.2002 limited it to 0.5% of the value of dispute and Rs.50/- in other cases towards Legal Benefit Fund payable by the litigants filing appeals and revisions. Even though the statutory limit was upto 1% of the amount of dispute involved or Rs.100/- as the case may be, Government while issuing Notification on 5.4.2002 limited it to 0.5% of the value of dispute and Rs.50/- in other cases towards Legal Benefit Fund payable by the litigants filing appeals and revisions. When the levy was effectively introduced through Notifications above referred, several litigations were filed by various parties in this court wherein the constitutional validity of Section 76 of the Act was questioned and along with it the validity of the Government Orders providing for the levy and collection of Legal Benefit Fund in the form of additional court fee. The learned Single Judge in a batch of cases upheld the constitutional validity of the levy but declared that for the purpose of collection of the Legal Benefit Fund in the form of additional court fee liability is only for appeals or revisions filed in respect of any orders issued from the assessment year 2002-2003 onwards. In other words, under the judgment, for appeals or revisions filed against any assessment, penalty or any proceeding issued or pertaining to any order relating to any assessment year upto and including 2001-2002, there was no liability for payment of Legal benefit Fund in the form of additional court fee. So much so, the effective operation of the Government Orders is deferred by this court from the date of Notification i.e. from 5.4.2002 until such time an appeal or revision is filed in respect of any order relating to assessment year 2002-2003 or any subsequent assessment year. The State has not filed any appeal against the judgment probably because constitutional validity of the Section and the government Orders authorising collection of Legal Benefit Fund in the form of additional court fee from litigants is sustained by this court, though with a rider that it does not apply for appeal or revision pertaining to any assessment year upto and including 2001-2002. On appeals filed by the parties challenging the judgment upholding constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act and the Government Orders, a Division Bench of this court confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. On appeals filed by the parties challenging the judgment upholding constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act and the Government Orders, a Division Bench of this court confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. However, the Division Bench had not occasion to consider the correctness of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge on the question raised by the appellants in these Writ Appeals filed under leave granted by us wherein the question raised is the correctness of the judgment with reference to the effective date of operation of the Government Orders providing for levy and collection of Legal Benefit Fund in the form of additional court fee. According to the appellants, the impugned judgment has substantially affected the appellants’ right to recover Legal Benefit Fund at the rates prescribed in the form of additional court fee for every appeal or revision filed after 5.4.2002 i.e. the effective date of the Government Order authorising levy. If the judgment is upheld, the effect will be such that the levy introduced with effect from 5.2.2002 could actually be collected for appeals and revisions filed against the orders or proceedings issued for any assessment year commencing from 2002-2003 which may happen probably in 2003-2004 or later than that. It is against the operation of this part of the judgment the appellants have comp up with appeals before us. 3. Counsel for the appellants specifically referred to the detailed provisions of Section 76 which authorises the Government to collect Legal Benefit fund in respect of statutory appeals and revisions filed before the authorities including the Tribunal other than civil and criminal courts by way of additional court fee within the range provided in subsection (1) of Section 76. Even though provision was there from the year 1962 onwards, the Government made the Rules under sub-section (4) only in 1991. It is much thereafter in 2002 the Government issued two separate orders creating the appellant which is a trust formed to administer the scheme and also the Government Order dated 5.4.2002 authorising levy at the rate stated above under Section 76(1) of the Act. There is no need for us to consider the constitutional validity of the provision and the Government Orders creating the appellant-trust fund and also authorising the levy which are upheld by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench. There is no need for us to consider the constitutional validity of the provision and the Government Orders creating the appellant-trust fund and also authorising the levy which are upheld by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench. Further, the matter is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP filed by the parties. However, since the challenge raised by the appellants in this batch of cases against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was not raised before the Division Bench nor before the Honourable Supreme Court, the issue is open for consideration before this court which has granted the appellants leave to file appeals. There can be no dispute that the appellants have grievance against the judgment in as much as collection is not permitted under the impugned judgment for any appeal or revision filed before statutory authorities or before the Tribunal from 5.4.2002 which is the scope of the Government Order, though not found acceptable by the learned Single Judge by applying the principle that the lis starts in the assessment year and so much so, appeals and revisions in respect of which Legal Benefit Fund is payable by way of additional court fee also should apply only for any order or proceeding issued for any assessment year in which the Government Order authorising the levy is issued. Since all the orders are extracted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we do not wish to extract the same provisions in this judgment as well. 4. There is no judgment of the Supreme Court directly on the point. However, the judgments of the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this court relied on by the learned Single Judge are the following. P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 696, Atlas Cycle Industries Limited’s case reported in AIR 1979 SC 1149, The Quarry Owners Association’s case reported in AIR 2000 SC 2870, State of Bombay v M/s. S.G. Films Exchange reported in AIR 1960 SC 980, Ushav. FCI reported in 1997 (1) KLT 264, and Procurator, R.C. Diocese, Calicut v. State of Kerala reported in 2003 (1) KLT 618. FCI reported in 1997 (1) KLT 264, and Procurator, R.C. Diocese, Calicut v. State of Kerala reported in 2003 (1) KLT 618. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the above judgments are not directly on the point raised by the appellants i.e. appellants’ entitlement to collect Legal Benefit Fund in the form of additional court fee under Section 76(1) read with the Notification issued by the government for any appeal or revision filed after 5.4.2002 (irrespective of) the assessment year to which the appeal or revision relates. We find force in the contention of the appellants because neither the Section nor the Government Orders provide for collection of Legal Benefit Fund by way of additional court fee with reference to any assessment year. On the other hand, what is provided is levy and collection of Legal Benefit Fund for any appeal or revision filed before any statutory authority or Tribunal other than civil and criminal courts. Since levy is statutorily authorised, it is upto the Government while issuing the order to fix the effective date of levy and collection which in this case is the date of order i.e. 5.4.2002. So much so, going by the orders of the Government and the operative provisions of the statute, we feel every appeal or revision filed on or after 5.4.2002 irrespective of the assessment year to which it relates, Legal Benefit Fund in the form of additional court fee is payable at the rates prescribed under the Government Orders. So much so, going by the orders of the Government and the operative provisions of the statute, we feel every appeal or revision filed on or after 5.4.2002 irrespective of the assessment year to which it relates, Legal Benefit Fund in the form of additional court fee is payable at the rates prescribed under the Government Orders. However, we notice that in the judgment of the Supreme Court cited above and relied on by the learned Single Judge which is in State of Bombay v. Supreme General Films Exchange it is held as follows: “It is thus clear that in a long time of decisions approved by this Court and at least in one given by this Court, it has been held that an impairment of the right of appeal by putting a new restriction thereon or imposing a more onerous condition is not a matter of procedure only; it impairs or imperils a substantive right and an enactment which does so is not retrospective unless it says so expressly or by necessary intendment.” Going by the above decision of Supreme Court, we feel the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be erroneous or unsustainable even though it has in effect taken away the benefit to the appellants from the effective date given by the Government Orders. We, therefore, dismiss all the appeals filed by the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants prayed for issuance of certificate of fitness for filing appeal to the Supreme Court. The judgment of the learned Single Judge confirmed by Division Bench is already pending in Supreme Court in the SLP where leave is granted. The question raised in these appeals is also substantially important and the judgment seriously affects recovery from effective date. So much so, we feel the question decided is one fit for appeal to Supreme Court. Accordingly we certify that the judgment is one fit for appeal to Supreme Court. Registry will issue certificate of fitness.