Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1965 DIGILAW 272 (KER)

P. S. KRISHNAN v. BOARD OF REVENUE, KERALA

1965-09-23

P.GOVINDA NAIR

body1965
Judgment :- 1. The question raised in this writ application is whether the Board of Revenue "or other authority specified by the Government" for the purpose of S.55 (1) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, erred in ignoring the request of the petitioner contained in Exx. P-4 and P-6 for making a reference of a case said to arise out of an order passed under S.47 (5) of the the relevant facts. 2. A document of sale was executed by the petitioner in favour of a stranger on 10th January 1962. This document could not however, be registered, it is stated, because of the unwillingness of the other contracting party to abide by the terms of the contract. So another document of sale was executed in favour of a different purchaser and it was registered on 23rd May 1962. The petitioner then applied under S.47 of the Act for refund of the stamp duty of Rs. 1,025 paid on the sale deed executed by him on 10th January 1962. This application was rejected by the Tahsildar exercising the powers of the Collector under the Act, by Ex. P-3 order stating that the application was belated. This order was appealed against and the District Collector, it is said, dismissed the appeal on 10th July 1963. Thereafter the petitioner moved Ex. P-4 petition before the Board of Revenue and stated various grounds in support of his claim for refund and concluded the petition with the prayer in Para.18: "In case the Government, has any doubt in the matter I pray that the case may be referred to the High Court under S.55 of the Kerala Stamp Act 17 of 1959 as otherwise I will be put to serious loss and hardship, if the very narrow view that I should apply for refund within two months of the execution of a document when an executant or claimant under a document has full 4 months and an extended period of 8 months for presenting it for registration within which time he may accept or refuse to accept it." 3. Ex. P-5 reading as follows was then passed by the Board of Revenue: 'The Board does not find any reason to interfere with the orders already passed by the District Collector in the matter. The petition is rejected. The stamp papers for Rs. Ex. P-5 reading as follows was then passed by the Board of Revenue: 'The Board does not find any reason to interfere with the orders already passed by the District Collector in the matter. The petition is rejected. The stamp papers for Rs. 1025 are returned herewith." Yet another attempt was made by the petitioner for a reference by Ex. P-6 petition which was rejected by Ex. P-7: "The request of the petitioner is rejected". 4. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner states that under S.55(1) of the Act the Board of Revenue has no discretion to refuse the application and that it is obliged to refer the question. The learned Government Pleader contests this proposition. According to him, a case arising from an order passed under S.47 in Chapter V of the Act cannot form the subject matter of a reference and S.55 can have no application to such a case. In order to understand this contention, it is necessary to read S.54 and 55 of the Act. "54. Control of and statement of case to the Government or other authority specified by the Government. (1) The powers exercisable by a Collector under Chapters IV and V and under clause (a) of the first proviso to S.27 shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Government or such other authority as may be specified by Government in this behalf. (2) If any Collector acting under S.31, S.39 or S.40, feels doubt as to the amount of duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may draw up a statement of the case and refer it with his own opinion thereon, for the decision of the Government or such other authority as may be specified by Government in this behalf. (3) The Government or such authority shall consider the case and send a copy of its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed to assess and charge the duty, if any, in conformity with such decision. 55. Statement of case by the Government or other authority specified by the Government to nigh Court. (1) The Government or such other authority as may be specified by Government in this behalf may state any case referred to it under sub-section (2) of S.54 or otherwise coming to its notice, and refer such case with its own opinion thereon, to the High Court. (1) The Government or such other authority as may be specified by Government in this behalf may state any case referred to it under sub-section (2) of S.54 or otherwise coming to its notice, and refer such case with its own opinion thereon, to the High Court. (2) Every such case shall be decided by not less than three judges of the High Court and in case of difference, the opinion of the majority shall prevail." 5. The contention of counsel on behalf of the revenue is that though S.55 (1) specifically refers to "any case" the section can only apply to such cases that fall under S.54 (2). These are the cases determining the amount of stamp duty payable on a document arising under S.31,39 and 40 of the Act. Such cases may be referred when the Collector felt doubt, to the Government or such other authority under S.54 (2) and that authority in its turn may refer to the High Court. Such cases the Government or such other authority may also refer to the High Court when they otherwise come to its notice. But references must be confined to that type of cases. "The scheme of the Statute" it is urged, supports this contention. That scheme visualises the determination of only certain questions pertaining to the adequacy 6r the amount of stamp duty paid or payable on a particular document by a reference to the High Court. These may call for the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Statute and what is more important the interpretation of complicated documents. In such matters, according to counsel, the legislature intended that there should be finality only subject to the opinion of the High Court being obtained and a conclusion by not less than three judges of the High Court as envisaged by S.55 (2) of the Act reached. The cases in which the opinion of the High Court is to be obtained are those falling under S.31, 39 and 40. To cases falling under other sections of the Act, S.55 (1) is not attracted. No direct authority for this proposition has been referred to. And the ruling in Mst. Takhti Bai v. The State AIR. 1957 Rajastan 125 relied on has no application. 6. The matter has therefore to be decided on an interpretation of the provisions of the Statute by applying the well-known principles of interpretation. No direct authority for this proposition has been referred to. And the ruling in Mst. Takhti Bai v. The State AIR. 1957 Rajastan 125 relied on has no application. 6. The matter has therefore to be decided on an interpretation of the provisions of the Statute by applying the well-known principles of interpretation. S.54(1) postulates a supervisory control by the Government or 'by the authority' in all matters in relation to which power can be exercised under Chapters IV and V of the Statute. S.47 occurs in Chapter V. The three S.31, 39 and 40 occur in Chapter IV. Since supervisory control is granted to the Government or the other authority in relation to all matters that may fall under Chapters IV and V, the conclusion is inevitable that any case "otherwise coming to its notice" under S.55(1) of the Statute can very well comprehend the matters falling under Chapter V of the Statute. If that be so, a decision under S.47 is a matter which can be brought to the notice of the Government'or other authority' under S.55. If such matters are brought to the notice of that authority, that authority can decide the question exercising the power of supervision which I take it is similar to the power of revision. It seems to me that the wording of S.55(1) is capable of comprehending not merely the cases that can be decided under S.31, 39 and 40 but also matters that may fall under Chapter V. I do not think that this Court can give a limited meaning to the expression 'any case otherwise coming to its notice occurring in S.55(1), Nor can I find any reason for limiting the ordinary meaning of the words in the section. So the contention raised by counsel on behalf of the revenue has to be rejected. 7. Matters which come before the 'other authority' can either be decided under S.55(1) or referred to the High Court for its opinion. And, if a request has been made for reference before the decision is taken by that authority it is bound to refer the matter. The power that is conferred by the section is coupled with a duty to exercise it is ruled in a number of cases and that proposition is not challenged before me. The prayer in Ex. And, if a request has been made for reference before the decision is taken by that authority it is bound to refer the matter. The power that is conferred by the section is coupled with a duty to exercise it is ruled in a number of cases and that proposition is not challenged before me. The prayer in Ex. P-4, reading the whole document, is that relief may be granted to the petitioner by the Board of Revenue, 'the other authority' and if there is any doubt in granting that prayer the matter may be referred to the High Court for decision under S.55(1). So the request for reference should have been complied with. 8. The only further question is whether in view of the orders, Exx. P-5 and P-7, the matter can be said to have become final and therefore the Board of Revenue precluded from making a reference under S.55(1). A number of decisions, starting from the decision in Referred Case No. 14 of 1901, ILR. 25 Madras 752 and resting with that of the Mysore High Court in Shri Ramakrishna Theatre by its Managing Director, A. Janardhan Alsa v. Chief Revenue Controlling Authority AIR. 1962 Mysore 266 have been brought to my notice by counsel on behalf of the revenue for the proposition that when final orders have been passed either by the Collector or by any other authority functioning under the Statute thereafter there is no competency for the Board of Revenue or the Government to refer any question for decision to the High Court. I do not think I should go into the details of these cases because it appears to me that the matter was definitely pending before the Board of Revenue when the request contained in Ex. P-4 that if that authority felt any doubt in granting the relief, the question must be referred to the High Court was made. As I said earlier, I understand the prayer in that application as a request for a reference in case the Board of Revenue felt that it could not grant the relief. The petition could of course have been rejected if the request contained therein was only for relief. But if there was a prayer for reference, as [ see there was, the matter cannot be stultified by the Board of Revenue purporting to decide the matter itself. 9. The petition could of course have been rejected if the request contained therein was only for relief. But if there was a prayer for reference, as [ see there was, the matter cannot be stultified by the Board of Revenue purporting to decide the matter itself. 9. It was then suggested that the right to a reference can arise only when disputes involving substantial questions of law in regard to the interpretation of the Statute or a document arises. This may be so. I feel no doubt that the question raised in this case is an important one relating to the interpretation of the Statute on the question of the period within which an application under S.47 should be made. This question is of general application as well. 10. In the light of the above, I quash Exx. P-5 and P-7 orders and direct the respondent to state a case with his own opinion and refer the question contained in Ex. P-6 to the High Court. 11. This writ application is ordered on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.