SRI RAMAKRISHNA THEATRE Vs. CHIEF REVENUE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference under 54(1) of the Mysore Stamp Act ( which corresponds to S. 57 follow the Indian Stamp Act) has been made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Commissioner of Stamps in Mysore) referring certain questions raised therein for the decision of this Court under Sec 54(2) of the Act in the following circumstances: The manager Director of Sri Ramakrishna Theater, Udipi, South Kanara executed a document in favour of Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate for a consideration of Rs. 20.000/-. The said document was drawn up on a stamp paper of Rs. 1-50. When the said document was presented before the Assistant Register of Joint Stock Companies, he impounded the same and held that the document was a mortage deed chargeable with a stamp duty of Rs. 300/- under Art, 33 (b) of Schedule 1-A, of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by the madras Stamp Act of 1922. On being called upon by the Assistant Registrar recorded a certificate on the document under S. 42 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899, on 27-3-1952 as collector under the Stamp Act. Thereafter, the executant preferred an appeal to the collector of South Kanara against the order of the Assistant Registrar of joint Stock Companies and Collector of Stamps. The collector of South Kanara entertained a doubt as to the nature of the document and the levy of stamp duty and therefore, referred the matter to the Madras Board of Revenue which was the chief Controlling Revenue Authority in madras. On receipt of the reference, the Board examined the document and held that the document in question was one coming under Art 33 (b) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, chargeable with a duty of Rs. 600/- and directed the collector to collect a further sum of Rs. 300/- by way of stamp duty. On receipt of the opinion of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority , the Collector passed orders directing the executant of the document to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 300/- in addition to what he had already paid before the Assistant Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter the executant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 295/56 challenging the order of the Assistant Registrar of Joint Stock Companies as well as of the Collector, South Kanara, demanding stamp duty on the document construing the same as a mortgage deed and prayed for quashing of the said orders. The High Court of Madras dismissed the Writ Petition with the observation that it was still open to the petitioner- executant to avail of the statutory remedy under the Stamp Act. In the meanwhile, the Collector took necessary steps, issued a Demand Notice and collected the additional deficient stamp duty as per his orders. Thereafter the executant of the document made an application title the Chief Revenue Controlling authority to direct the Collector to refund the stamp duty that he had illegally collected from him, treating the document as a mortgage deed and / or in the alternative, to refer the matter for the decision of the High Court under S. 57(2) order of the Indian Stamp Act. Consequent upon the Re-organisation of States, the matter was transferred to the chief Controlling Authority (commissioner of Stamps in Mysore), Bangalore. The Commissioner of Stamps in Mysore while expressing his opinion that the decision of the Board of Revenue, Government of Madras, holding that the document in question is a mortgage deed chargeable with a duty of Rs. 600/- under Art 33 (a) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by the Madras Stamp Act of 1922 was correct has submitted the following questions for the decision of the Court under Section 54 (1) of the Mysore Stamp Act.

(2.) It is clear from the above narration that the Collector of South Kanara held on the basis of the advice tendered to in by the chief Revenue Controlling Authority that the document is a mortgage deed and levied a stamp duty of Rs. 600/- He accordingly dismissed the appeal preferred by the executant of the document against the order of the Assistant Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. The question for consideration is whether in these circumstances the Commissioner of Stamps i Mysore could make the reference under S. 54 of the Mysore Stamp Act (which corresponds to S. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act) for our decision. Section 54 of the Mysore Stamp Act reads thus:

(3.) Admittedly the Collector acting under S. 31 or S. 39 or S. 40, has for made any reference with his opinion, to the decision of the Chief Controlling Authority under sub-section (A0 of S. 53. Similarly, the chief Controlling Revenue Authority did not make any reference to this Court, under S. 54 (1) on its own initiative. It is on the basis of an application made by the executant of the document that the levy and the collection of stamp duty on the document in the basis that it was in the nature of a mortgage deed was illegal, that the Commissioner of Stamps in Mysore has through it fit to make this reference. Admittedly any' case' relating to the changing of the document with stamp duty is not pending before the Collector of the Chief Controlling authority . Section 54(1) gives power to the Chief Revenue Controlling authority to state any case referred to it under S. 53(2) of otherwise coming to its notice, and refer such case, with its opinion thereon to the High Court . Section 55 deals with the power of the High /Court to call for further particulars relating to the case stated and S. 56 provides that High Court shall decide the questions raised thereby and should deliver its judgment containing grounds on which such decision is founded. Then under Sub-section (2) of S. 56 the High Court will send its judgment to the Revenue Authority by which the case was stated and the Revenue Authority shall, on receiving such copy, dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.