Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.24 seconds)The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Section 32 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Section 59 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
The Chief Controlling Revenue ... vs The Maharashtra Sugar Mills, Limited. on 2 September, 1947
It will be noticed that when the Assistant Supdt. of Stamps
decided on July 19, 1945 that the document was a mortgage
chargeable with the duty of Rs. 56,250 and ordered the Mills
to pay the deficit and the penalty, the case before him was
concluded. In fact he wrote to the Registrar of Companies
returning the document that it would be certified by him on
payment of the said amounts. The Collector thereafter was
requested to recover the two amounts and a demand was also
made on the Mills. It is true that the application of the
Mills dated February 1, 1945 to the Collector under sec.
56(2) was not decided when the Mills on February 5, 1946
asked the Authority to state the case. But unlike section
57(1) the Collector under sec. 56(2) may refer the case, if
he is in doubt. The duty of the Collector not being obli-
gatory, the case was concluded long before the Mills'
application dated February 5, 1946. In any event as the
Collector did not refer the case under sec. 56(2) to the
Authority it cannot be said that there was any pending case
either before him or the Authority and yet the High Court
ordered the Authority to state the case. The Authority
appealed to this Court and as reported in Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd.(1) urged
three points: (i) whether under sec. 57 there is an
obligation on the Authority to state a case; (ii) whether
having regard to s. 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935
the High Court had jurisdiction to order a reference, the
matter being one of revenue and (iii) that the matter having
proceeded beyond the stage of assessment and having reached
the stage of recovery the High Court could not direct a
reference of the case-, in other words, there being no case
pending before the Authority a reference by it would not be
competent and the High Court therefore would have no
jurisdiction either to direct or to decide such reference
even if made.
Alcock, Ashdown And Company Limited vs The Chief Revenue Authority Of Bombay on 7 June, 1923
As the Privy Council
stated in Alcock Ashdown v. Chief Revenue Authority,
Bombay(4), "To argue that if the legislature says that a
public officer, even a revenue officer, shall do a thing and
he without cause or justification refuses to do that thing,
yet the Specific Relief Act would not be applicable, and
there would be no power in the Court to give relief to the
subject, is to state a proposition to which their Lordships
must refuse assent." It also must now be taken as settled
that that duty is not affected by the question whether the
case is pending before the Authority or not. The principle
underlying the decision is that sec. 57 affords a remedy to
the citizen to have his case referred to the High Court
against an order of a revenue authority imposing stamp duty
and/or penalty provided the application involves a
substantial question of law and imposes a corresponding
obligation on the authority to refer it to the High Court
for its opinion. Such a right and obligation cannot be
construed to depend upon any subsidiary circumstance such as
the pendency of the case before the Authority. If the
position is as held in I.L.R. 25 Mad. 752 the mere fact that
the Collector has determined the duty and closed the case
would render nugatoty not only the controlling, jurisdiction
of the Authority but the remedy which sec. 57(1) gives to
the citizen as also the obligation of the Authority to state
the case. The difficulty which the learned judges felt in
I. L. R. 25 Mad. 752 and repeated in subsequent decisions is
not, in our views, a real one because as soon as a
reference is made and the
(1) A.I.R. 1960 Cal. 340. (2) I.L.R. [1932] 59 Cal. 1171.
(3) [1950] S.C.R. 536. (4) 50 I.A. 227, 233.
Section 31 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Section 57 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Poosarla China Appalanarasimhalu vs Board Of Revenue, Chepauk, Madras on 11 February, 1952
At
page 321 of the report the High Court observed that the
language of sec. 57, viz., that "the authority may state any
case referred to it under section 56(2) or otherwise coming
to its notice", and "refer such case with its own opinion
thereon" made it clear that the reference has to be made at
the stage when the case is still pending before it. When
the High Court's attention was &awn to the decision in
Maharashtra Sugar Mills'(6) case and Appalanarasimhalu v.
Board of Revenue(7) and Shanmugha v. Board of Revenue(8) the
High Court distinguished the Maharashtra Sugar Mills'(6)
case on the ground that the application for reference made
under s. 56(2) to the Collector had not been decided when
the Authority was asked to state the case under section
57(1) and that therefore it was possible to say that the
case was still pending. As regards the two Madras decisions
the High Court agreed that the reference applied there was
after the cases were concluded but observed that the Madras
High Court had not examined the question whether reference
under s. 57(1) was in such cases competent and that it
relied on the decision in Maharashtra Sugar Mills'(6) case
without noticing that in that case reference was applied for
while the application asking the
(1) A.I.R. 1952 Mad. 811.
V.S. Shanmugha Mudaliar vs Board Of Revenue, Madras And Anr. on 16 July, 1954
At
page 321 of the report the High Court observed that the
language of sec. 57, viz., that "the authority may state any
case referred to it under section 56(2) or otherwise coming
to its notice", and "refer such case with its own opinion
thereon" made it clear that the reference has to be made at
the stage when the case is still pending before it. When
the High Court's attention was &awn to the decision in
Maharashtra Sugar Mills'(6) case and Appalanarasimhalu v.
Board of Revenue(7) and Shanmugha v. Board of Revenue(8) the
High Court distinguished the Maharashtra Sugar Mills'(6)
case on the ground that the application for reference made
under s. 56(2) to the Collector had not been decided when
the Authority was asked to state the case under section
57(1) and that therefore it was possible to say that the
case was still pending. As regards the two Madras decisions
the High Court agreed that the reference applied there was
after the cases were concluded but observed that the Madras
High Court had not examined the question whether reference
under s. 57(1) was in such cases competent and that it
relied on the decision in Maharashtra Sugar Mills'(6) case
without noticing that in that case reference was applied for
while the application asking the
(1) A.I.R. 1952 Mad. 811.