O. H. MOOTHAM, CJ. 

( 1 ) THIS is a reference made by the Board of Revenue as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act.

( 2 ) CERTAIN share transfer deeds were filed in the court of the Additional District Judge, Kanpur. They were impounded by the learned Judge on the ground that they were not duly stamped and were sent by him to the Collector pursuant to Section 38 (2) of the Act. The Collector was of opinion that the sum of Rs. 12,778/6/- was payable as stamp duty on the transfer deeds, and by an order dated the 7th December, 1954, he directed the transferee to pay this amount together with a penalty of Rs. 5/-, and that upon payment being made the deeds be certified as duly stamped. It is not in dispute that the duty together with the penalty has been paid, and that the collector has, under Section 42 (1), certified on the deeds that the proper duty has been levied. The matter subsequently came to the notice of the Board of Revenue which doubted whether the collector had assessed the duty on the transfer deeds on the proper basis, and it has referred to this Court the following question, namely

"whether the Collector was right in assessing duty on the basis of the quotations of the share market, or it should have been assessed on the market-value determined on the basis of the sale price of the shares paid in the auction; and further whether the stamp duty as assessed by the board is leviable on the transfer deeds. "

( 3 ) THE question which immediately arises is whether in these circumstances the Board has the power to mate the present reference. Section 57 (1) of the Act empowers the Chief Controlling revenue Authority to "state any case referred to it under Section 56, Sub-section (2), or otherwise coming to its notice, and refer such case with its opinion thereon to the High Court. Reading this provision with Section 59 (2), which requires the Revenue Authority on receipt of the High Court Judgment to "dispose of the case conformably to such judgment", there can in our opinion be no doubt that the purpose of Section 57 (1) is an entirely practical one, and that that section can have no application unless there is a case pending before the , Revenue authority, whether it be a case referred to it under Section 56 (2) or otherwise coming to its notice, in respect of which that authority can give effect to the advisory opinion of the Court. That opinion, as was said by Rankin, C. J. , in in re Cook and Kolvey AIR 1932 Cal 736 (A) is merely to guide the Revenue Authority "in disposing of an actual and concrete case".

( 4 ) NOW in the present case the Collector, acting under Section 42 (1), has certified by endorsement on the deeds that the proper duty and penalty had been paid. The question is whether after such a certificate had been given there is any case now pending before the Chief controlling Revenue Authority.

( 5 ) SOMEWHAT strangely it appears that in only one of the reported cases has this question directly arisen. That is the case of In re Khub Chand AIR 1918 All 181 (2) (B), and it was there decided that when once the Collector has certified that the duty and penalty levied under Section 40 (1) (b) has been paid a reference to the High Court under Section 57 (1) is not competent. The learned Judges in that case relied however on the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 40 overlooking (it would appear) that that subsection was not applicable to a case falling within sub-section (1) (b) of Section 40. AIR 1932 Cal 736 (A) and Reference under Stamp Act, section 57, ILR 25 Mad 751 (C) were cases in which the Collector had determined the duty payable in exercise of his powers under Section 31; in Usuf Dadabbai v. Chand Mahomed AIR 1926 Bom 51 (D) the Collector had issued a certificate under Section 37 and in Jaidayal Shanti kumar v. Gajadhar AIR 1956 Raj 155 (E) he had refused to issue a certificate under that section. In Reference under Stamp Act, Section 57, ILR 25 Mad 752

Click Here to Read the rest of this document