LexBANARSI DAS AHLUWALIA versus THE CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY, DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BANARSI DAS AHLUWALIA v. l'HE CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY, DELHI [J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI AND J. M. SHF.LAT, JJ.] Sq1tember 28, 1967 Indian Stamp Act, 1899, s. 57(1) and (2)-App!ication to Re- t>enue Authority to state a case for opinion of High Court-Substan- tial question of law involved-If Authorit11 bound to state a case whether there is a 'pending case or not'. A B The appellant executed a deed of trust on December 20, 1961, in respect of certain properties on a stamp paper of Rs. 30 /- on the footing that the . deed was a declaration of tr!-'st. . The Sub- C Registrar to whom it was presented for reg1strat10n, impounded the deed and forwarded it to the Collector for action under sec. 38 (2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 2 of 1899. The Collector thereafter directed the appellant to deposit additional stamp duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 36,685/- but the Chief Controlling Revenue Autho- rity Delhi, reduced the amount in revision to Rs. 3,780/-. Tho appellant then applied to that Authority to state .a case to the D High Court under section 57(1) but this application was rejected and a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging this rejection was dismissed by the High Court. In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the Authority was, under section 57(li), bound to refer the case to the High Courtr even though there was no pend- ing case before it and by its refusal to do so the Authority failed to discharge its statutory duty; that the High Court was in the cir- E cumstances competent to direct the reference and the summary dismissal of the writ petition by it was wrong, On the other hand the respondent's contention was that section 57(1) postulates the existence of a pending case; that the word "case" in the sub-section means a case which has not been finally decided by the revenue authorities and which is capable of being disposed of, where a refer- ence is made to the High Court, in accordance with the opinion of F the Court as provided by sec. 59(2). He!<l: When a reference has been made to the Authority or the case has other\.vise come to his notice. if an application is made under s. 57(1) and it involves a substantial question of law whether the case is pending or not, the Authority is bound to stat~ the case in compliance with its obligation. [695 A-Bl Section 57 aflords a remedy to the citizen to have his case refer- red to the High Court against an order of a revenue authority impos- -mg stamp . duty and I or penalty provided the application involves G •. substantial quest!on of law and imposes a corresponding obliga- t,ion on the Authonty ~o ~efer it to the High Court for its opinion. Such a njlht and .obhgat10n cannot be construed to depend upon any subs1d1ary circumstance such as the pel)dency of the case before the Authority, [694 F-G] , Th~ Authority. therefore was in error in refusing to state the H ca~e. and the. tligh .C.ourt was equally in error in summarily dis- m1>Smg .the \U.t pel!t10n as the question whether the document was a declaration of trust or was a deed of settlement was ·1 substantial question of law. [695 CJ · ' · · li85 SUPllE!olE OOUllT RliPOllTB (1968) 1 S.C,R, A Chief Contro!ling Revenue Authoritu v. Maharashtra S1tgar Mills Ltd., [1950] S.C.R. 536; relied upon and explained. B c Case law reviewed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1965 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 16, 1963 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Writ No. CW-267-D of 1963. I. M. Lall, E. C. Agrawala and P. C. Agrawa/a, for the appellant. N. S. Bindra, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, for the res- pondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sbelat, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 1Jrder of the High. Court of Punjab (Delhi Bench) dismissing the appellant's petition for an appropriate writ directing the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi, to state the case to the High Cou~t under sec. 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 2 of 1899. the facts leading to the said petition may be briefly stated: D On December 20, 1961 the appellant executed a deed of trust in respect of certain properties on a stamp paper of Rs. 30 on the footing that the said deed was a declaration of trust. The Sub- Registrar to whom it was presented for registration, impounded it and forwarded it to the Collector for acti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.