BOARD OF REVENUE Vs. LAKSHMIPAT SINGHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the Board of Revenue as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act.

(2.) Certain share transfer deeds were filed in the court of the Additional District Judge, Kanpur. They were impounded by the learned Judge on the ground that they were not duly stamped and were sent by him to the Collector pursuant to Section 38 (2) of the Act. The Collector was of opinion that the sum of Rs. 12,778/6/- was payable as stamp duty on the transfer deeds, and by an order dated the 7th December, 1954, he directed the transferee to pay this amount together with a penalty of Rs. 5/-, and that upon payment being made the deeds be certified as duly stamped. It is not in dispute that the duty together with the penalty has been paid, and that the Collector has, under Section 42 (1), certified on the deeds that the proper duty has been levied. The matter subsequently came to the notice of the Board of Revenue which doubted whether the Collector had assessed the duty on the transfer deeds on the proper basis, and it has referred to this Court the following question, namely

(3.) The question which immediately arises is whether in these circumstances the Board has the power to mate the present reference. Section 57(1) of the Act empowers the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to "state any case referred to it under Section 56, Sub-section (2), or otherwise coming to its notice, and refer such case with its opinion thereon'' to the High Court. Reading this provision with Section 59(2), which requires the Revenue Authority on receipt of the High Court Judgment to "dispose of the case conformably to such judgment", there can in our opinion be no doubt that the purpose of Section 57 (1) is an entirely practical one, and that that section can have no application unless there is a case pending before the , Revenue Authority, whether it be a case referred to it under Section 56 (2) or otherwise coming to its notice, in respect of which that authority can give effect to the advisory opinion of the Court. That opinion, as was said by Rankin, C. J., in in re Cook and Kolvey AIR 1932 Cal 736 (A) is merely to guide the Revenue Authority "in disposing of an actual and concrete case".