9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Obligation to state a case under Section 57 of the Stamp Act. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935. Detailed Analysis: 1. Obligation to State a Case under Section 57 of the Stamp Act: The primary issue is whether the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (the appellant) is obligated to state a case for the opinion of the High Court under Section 57 of the Stamp Act. The appellant contended that Section 57 provides discretionary power rather than an obligation. The argument was that the word "may" in the section indicates a choice rather than a duty. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that Section 57 is not solely for the benefit of the appellant but also for the parties affected by the assessment of stamp duty. The Court noted that the appellant's decision involves interpreting complex legal questions, including the construction of documents and the effect of court orders for rectification. It is not sound to leave such intricate questions solely to the appellant's final decision without any legal recourse for the affected parties. The Court referenced the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council's decision in Alcock, Ashdown & Co. Ltd. v. Chief Revenue Authority, Bombay, which held that when a public authority is given the power to act, there may be circumstances that couple the power with a duty to exercise it. The Court concluded that the power under Section 57 is coupled with an obligation, and the affected parties can demand its exercise. Therefore, the High Court was justified in directing the appellant to state a case for its opinion. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935: The second issue concerns whether the High Court had jurisdiction to order the appellant to state a case, given the provisions of Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, which restricts the High Court's original jurisdiction in revenue matters. The appellant argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction because the matter had proceeded beyond the assessment stage to the recovery stage. The Court dismissed this argument, referencing the Privy Council's decision in Alcock's case, which clarified that directing a revenue officer to perform a statutory duty does not constitute exercising original jurisdiction in a revenue matter. The Court held that the High Court's order did not obstruct the Revenue Authority's duties but merely required the appellant to perform a statutory duty. The Court also noted that if payment is enforced and the High Court's opinion is against the appellant, the appellant would have to refund any excess amount recovered, as per Section 59(2) of the Stamp Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that: - The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has an obligation under Section 57 of the Stamp Act to state a case for the High Court's opinion when requested by an affected party. - The High Court has jurisdiction to direct the Revenue Authority to perform this statutory duty, and such direction does not constitute exercising original jurisdiction in a revenue matter under Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935.
|
