BANARSI DAS AHLUWALIA vs. THE CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY, DELHI

CIVIL APPEAL No. 53/1965Supreme Court[1968] 1 S.C.R. 68528 September 1967Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI, J.M. SHELAT10 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The appellant executed a deed of trust on December 20, 1961, on a stamp paper of Rs. 30, believing it to be a declaration of trust. The Sub-Registrar impounded the deed and sent it to the Collector for action. The Collector demanded additional stamp duty and penalty of Rs. 36,685. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) reduced this amount to Rs. 3,780. The appellant then applied to the CCRA under Section 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. This application was rejected, and a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the rejection was dismissed by the High Court. The appeal is against this High Court order.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that Section 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, imposes a duty on the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) to state a case to the High Court when an application is made and the case involves a substantial question of law. This duty is not contingent upon whether the case is pending before the Authority or not. The phrase 'otherwise coming to its notice' in Section 57(1) is of wide import. The Authority's refusal to state the case was an error, and the High Court's summary dismissal of the writ petition was also an error because the question of whether the document was a declaration of trust or a deed of settlement was a substantial question of law. The Court directed the CCRA to state the case to the High Court under Section 57(1).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is bound under Section 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, to state a case to the High Court even if there is no pending case before it, and if so, whether the High Court was competent to direct such a reference and erred in summarily dismissing the writ petition. Assessee's Arguments: The Authority was statutorily bound to refer the case under Section 57(1) regardless of whether a case was pending. The refusal to do so was a failure to discharge its duty. The High Court should have directed the reference and was wrong to dismiss the writ petition summarily. Revenue's Arguments: Section 57(1) postulates the existence of a pending case. The term 'case' implies a matter not finally decided by revenue authorities and capable of being disposed of in accordance with the High Court's opinion under Section 59(2). Therefore, the Authority cannot be compelled to state a case if no case is pending before it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 57(1),Section 57(2),Section 56(1),Section 56(2),Section 59(2),Section 38(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

BANARSI DAS AHLUWALIA v. l'HE CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY, DELHI [J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI AND J. M. SHF.LAT, JJ.] Sq1tember 28, 1967 Indian Stamp Act, 1899, s. 57(1) and (2)-App!ication to Re- t>enue Authority to state a case for opinion of High Court-Substan- tial question of law involved-If Authorit11 bound to state a case whether there is a 'pending case or not'. A B The appellant executed a deed of trust on December 20, 1961, in respect of certain properties on a stamp paper of Rs. 30 /- on the footing that the . deed was a declaration of tr!-'st. . The Sub- C Registrar to whom it was presented for reg1strat10n, impounded the deed and forwarded it to the Collector for action under sec. 38 (2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 2 of 1899. The Collector thereafter directed the appellant to deposit additional stamp duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 36,685/- but the Chief Controlling Revenue Autho- rity Delhi, reduced the amount in revision to Rs. 3,780/-. Tho appellant then applied to that Authority to state .a case to the D High Court under section 57(1) but this application was rejected and a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging this rejection was

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 56(1)

All 129 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →