PATHAK, J. :- On October 29, 1957, the Saraya Sugar Factory, a partnership firm, executed a sale deed in favour of the Saraya Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., a private limited company, for an apparent consideration of Rs. 17,35,601 and paid stamp duty accordingly. The deed was duly registered.

2. An Inspector of Stamp and Registration obtained a copy of the registered deed and referred the matter to the Chief Inspector of Stamps stating as his opinion that the real consideration was Rs. 1,07,04,832/-, having regard to Art. 23 read with Section 24 of the Stamp Act and that, therefore, a heavier duty should have been paid. The Collector of Gorakhpur accepted the opinion and made an order dated March 9, 1960, for payment of the deficit duty.

3. The Company applied under Sections 56 and 57 of the Act to the Board of Revenue, U. P., as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, praying that the Board should set aside the order of the Collector or refer the case to this Court for the decision of the three questions of law. One question arose on the plea of the Company that the Collector had no jurisdiction to take proceedings under Section 23 of the Stamps Act because the document was not "produced" before him within the meaning of that provision. Another question related to the true consideration covered by the sale deed and the duty payable in respect of the instrument. The Board rejected the revision application by its order dated September 15, 1960. It held that the Collector had jurisdiction to summon the document from the Company for the purpose of examining it and deciding whether it had been properly stamped. It also upheld the view taken by the Collector that a further duty was due on the deed.

4. The Company filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that the order of the Board rejecting the revision application be quashed and the Board be directed to make a reference to this court under Section 57. On December 2, 1965, this Court allowed the petition and issued the direction prayed for. The Board has now submitted a statement of the case. After setting out the facts it has framed the following two points of law for the opinion of this Court :

"1. Whether the document is a sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 17,35,601/-as contended by the executants?

2. Whether in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Stamp Act the sale consideration under the deed shall be deemed to Rs. 1,07,04,832 being the amount shown in the document plus the amount of liabilities disclosed from the balance sheet referred to therein which the vendee undertook to pay and duty liable to be paid thereon as held by the Board?"

5. Learned counsel for the Company contends that the question whether the Collector had jurisdiction to make an order under Section 33 should also have been framed by the Board for the opinion of this Court, and urges that either this Court should frame the question of law itself, or, alternatively, direct the Board to frame it and to submit a supplementary statement of the case. There has been serious debate before us on the question whether this Court has jurisdiction to frame a question of law apart from those already framed by the Board in the statement of the case. The question calls for serious consideration, specially as it does not appear to be covered by authority so far. Section 56 provides :

"56(1). The powers exercisable by a Collector under Chapter IV and Chapter V and under Cl. (a) of the first proviso to Section 26 shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

(2) If any collector, acting under Section 31, S. 40 or S. 41, feels doubt as to the amount of duty 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.

(3) Such authority shall consider the case and send a copy of its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed to assess and charge