AMA STORES Vs. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, Ama Stores, represented by its partner M. T. M. Abubacker, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing respectively the orders of the Collector or madras, the 1st Respondent, and the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Prohibition, excise and Settlement of Estates, Board of Revenue, Madras, the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner contended that a certain, document executed by him on 25-101963 was an agreement, which merely recited the facts of an alreadycompleted sale and also the conditions under which the sale took place. Hence he pleaded that it would suffice, for the purpose of paying the appropriate court-fee under the stamp Manual, if the document was stamped as an agreement, for which the duty payable is Rs. 2 1/4. This was the duty actually paid on, the document, viz. , Rs. 2 1/4. The petitioner had to bring this agreement before the Registrar of Trade marks for the purpose of transferring the trade mark; but that officer was of the opinion that the document in question was really a sale deed and sent it to the collector of Madras for impounding. For the levy of proper stamp duty the 1st respondent, the Collector of Madras, construed the terms of the document and came to the conclusion that it was a sale deed and not a mere agreement regarding a prior completed sale. The decision of the Collector was that as a sale deed a stamp duty of Rs. 1460-25 should be levied, and in addition a penalty of Rs. 250 should be paid. Aggrieved against the above decision the petitioner filed an appeal to the Board of Revenue, the 2nd respondent, who as the Chief Controlling Revenue authority, has got certain powers conferred under Section 56 (2) of the Act. It was this power that was invoked by the petitioner in his appeal against the order of the Collector. The board of Revenue in an elaborate order passed on 8-10-1965 came to the conclusion that the levy of stamp duty and penalty by the Collector was proper and dismissed the appeal petition of the petitioner.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition, and that is the main ground for the relief that he seeks, that the Board of Revenue as the Chief Controlling Revenue-Authority, whose appellate power the petitioner invoked, ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity for making a personal representation, especially, since in his appeal petition, he had specifically asked for that relief. It is urged for the petitioner that when the Board of Revenue disposed of the appeal only on the grounds set forth by the petitioner in the appeal memo ignoring the specific request made by the petitioner that he should be heard, there was non-compliance of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) RELIANCE was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court in Board of Revenue v. Vidyawati, and the decision of Srinivasan, J. in Annamalai and Co. v. District Registrar, for the stand taken that a proper compliance with the duties imposed by the statute on the Board of Revenue as the Chief Controlling Revenue authority in such a case should be viewed as involving a duty to hear the petitioner in person, especially when a large financial commitment would be imposed on him if his contentions are to be overruled. In the Supreme Court decision cited above the matter came up before the Board of Revenue on a reference by the Collector under Section 56 (2) of the Stamp Act. Such a reference is made by the Collector when without taking a decision himself he feels doubt as to the amount of duty payable. The Supreme Court held: