Section 57 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, imposes a duty on the Authority to state a case when it raises a substantial question of law, irrespective of whether the case is pending before it or not.

Judgement

SHELAT, J. - This appeal by special leave is directed against the order 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 Court under S. 57 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 2 of 1899.

2. The facts leading to the said petition may be briefly stated: 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 action under Section 38 (2). The Collector served a notice on the appellant to show cause why he should not be charged with deficient stamp duty of Rs. 3,365 and a penalty of Rs. 33,650. After hearing Counsel the Collector directed the appellant to deposit the aggregate amount of Rs. 36,685. The appellant filed a revision before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi who reduced the amount of deficit duty and penalty to Rs. 630 and Rs. 3150 respectively. On December 9, 1962 the appellant applied to the said Authority to state the case to the High Court under section 57 (1). That was rejected and the appellant filed a writ petition but the High Court dismissed it in limine.

3. The appellant s contention is that the Authority was under Section 57 (l) bound to refer the case to the High Court even though there was no pending case before it, that by its refusal to do so the Authority failed to discharge its statutory duty, that the High Court was in the circumstances competent to direct the reference and therefore the High Court s summary dismissal of the writ petition was wrong. The respondent s contention, on the other hand, is 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, if a reference is made and the High Court pronounces its opinion on such reference, in accordance with such opinion as provided by section 59 (2). It is contended that therefore the High Court cannot direct the Authority to state the case except where the case is still pending before the Revenue Authorities. How can the Authority, it was argued, dispose of the case conformably to the High Court s opinion when there is no case pending before it which it can dispose.

4. To appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to read at this stage the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 56 (1) provides that the powers exercisable by a Collector under Chapter IV and Chapter V and under Clause (a) of the first proviso to section 26, shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Sub-section (2) provides :-

"If any Collector, acting under section 31, Section 40 or Section 41 feels doubt as to the amount of duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may draw up a statement of the case, and refer it, with his own opinion thereon, for the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority."

Section 57 (1) provides :

"The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may state any case referred to it under Section 56, sub-section (2), or otherwise coming to its notice, and refer such case, with its own opinion thereon....."Section 59 provides that the High Court upon the hearing of any such case, shall decide the questions raised thereby and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded. Section 59 (2) provides that the High Court shall send to the Revenue Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment and the revenue Authority shall, on receiving such copy, dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.

5. Some of the earlier decisions of the High Courts of Madras and Calcutta took the view that though the words "other