{"id":226119,"date":"1950-05-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1950-05-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950"},"modified":"2017-03-29T18:47:11","modified_gmt":"2017-03-29T13:17:11","slug":"chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950","title":{"rendered":"Chief Controlling Revenue … vs Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd on 27 May, 1950"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chief Controlling Revenue … vs Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd on 27 May, 1950<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1950 AIR 218, \t\t 1950 SCR 536<\/div>\n
Author: H J Kania<\/div>\n
Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITYANDSUPERINTENDENT OF STAM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMAHARASHTRA SUGAR MILLS LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n27\/05\/1950\n\nBENCH:\nKANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nKANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)\nFAZAL ALI, SAIYID\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1950 AIR  218\t\t  1950 SCR  536\n CITATOR INFO :\n MV\t    1952 SC 252\t (89)\n R\t    1968 SC 497\t (7,8,9)\n\n\nACT:\n    Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899), ss. 57, 59 (2)--Reference\nto  High Court--Nature of power to refer--Duty to  refer  on\nrequest of party affected--Order  directing  Chief  Control-\nling   Authority  to  refer--Whether   \"matter\t  concerning\nrevenue\"   --Jurisdiction   of\t Original   Side   of\tHigh\nCourt--Government of India Act, 1935, s. 266 (1).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t power conferred on the Chief Revenue  Authority  by\nSec. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, to make a reference to\t the\nHigh  Court is not intended for the benefit of\tthe  Revenue\nAuthority  a1one,  but enures also for the  benefit  of\t the\nparty affected by the assessment.  It  is therefore  coupled\nwith  a duty  to make a reference when he is called upon  to\ndo so by the party effected, and if he declines to do so, it\nis within the power of the Court to direct him to  discharge\nthat duty and make a reference to the Court.\n    Alcock Ashdown & Co. Ltd. v. Chief Revenue Authority (50\nI.A.  227) and Julius v. Bishop of Oxford (5 A.C.  214)\t ap-\nplied.\n537\n    The order of a High Court to a revenue officer to do his\nduty would not be the exercise of original jurisdiction in a\nmatter concerning the revenue within the meaning of Sec. 226\nof  the Government of India Act, 1935, and the\tjurisdiction\nof  the High Court to direct the Chief\tControlling  Revenue\nAuthority to make    a reference under Sec. 57 of the  Stamp\nAct  was not barred by Sec. -226 of the Government of  India\nAct.\n The  fact  that the proceedings had  passed  beyond  the\nstage  of enforcing payment does not prevent the High  Court\nfrom  directing the Revenue Authority to make  a  reference,\nfor, if the opinion of the Court on the reference is against\nthe  Revenue Authority he will have to refund  whatever\t has\nbeen recovered in excess, under Sec. 59 (2) of the Act.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    APPEAL  from  the High Court of  Judicature\t at  Bombay:
\nCivil Appeal No. XII of 1950.\n<\/p>\n
    This was an appeal from a judgment and order of the High
\nCourt of Bombay (Chagla, Acting’ C.J. and Bhagwati J.) dated
\n2nd  September, 1947, in Appeal No. 60 of 1946.\t  The  facts
\nare fully set out in the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
    C.K. Daphtary,  Advocate-General of Bombay (M. M. Desai.
\nwith him) for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    M.C.  Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (S.S.  Ragne-
\nkar, with him) for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    1950.  May 27.  The judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\n    KANIA  C.J.–This  is an appeal from a judgment  of\t the
\nHigh  Court at Bombay and it relates to the jurisdiction  of
\nthe Court to direct the Chief Controlling Revenue  Authority
\nand  the Superintendent of Stamps at Bombay to state a\tcase
\nfor  the opinion of the Court under section 57 of the  Stamp
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t  respondent company,  for  its\t business,  borrowed
\nmoney  from  the Central Bank of India Ltd. at\tBombay.\t  In
\norder to secure the loan a document was executed on the 22nd
\nof March,  1945,  with a stamp of Rs. 16-8-0, on the footing
\nthat  it was a, deed of hypothecation without possession  of
\nthe  goods. When the deed was sent to the Sub-Registrar\t for
\nregistration he impounded the same and sent it to the  Stamp
\nOffice. The Assistant Superintendent of Stamps
\n538<\/span>
\nwrote  to  the respondent that the document was\t a  mortgage
\nwith  possession, chargeable with duty under article 40\t (a)
\nof  the\t Schedule and inquired why it was not  duly  stamped
\nbefore\texecution.   The respondent’s  solicitors  in  their
\nreply  contended  that the document was not, and  was  never
\nintended by the parties to be,\ta mortgage  with possession.
\nThey pointed out that no possession of the property had been
\ngiven or was intended to be given, except in certain contin-
\ngencies and therefore the document was properly stamped.  In
\nreply the Assistant Superintendent intimated that the  docu-
\nment was chargeable with duty of Rs. 56,250 and a penalty of
\nRs.  5,000 had been imposed.  The respondents were asked  to
\npay  the  amount  forthwith.  On the 27th  July,  1945,\t the
\nrespondent filed a suit against the Central Bank  contending
\nthat  the document was not a mortgage with  possession.\t  It
\nwas alleged that since a doubt had arisen as to whether\t the
\ndocument gave effect to the common intention of the  parties
\nthe  Court’s  directions were sought for and  if  the  Court
\nfound that the document as framed did not give effect to the
\nsaid  common intention of the parties the instrument may  be
\nrectified.  On 9th August, 1945, the respondent’s solicitors
\ninformed  the  Assistant  Superintendent that such  a\tsuit
\nhad  been  filed  and  requested that the demand for payment
\nof  stamp  duty and penalty  may not be\t pressed  under\t the
\ncircumstances.\t  In the further correspondence,  on  behalf
\nof the appellant,  the\tdemand was reiterated and resort  to
\nthe  coercive procedure of section 48 of the Stamp  Act\t was
\nthreatened.   The Collector thereafter sent a letter to\t the
\nrespondents  on the 17th January, 1946,\t demanding  payment.
\nOn the 25th of January, 1946, the suit filed by the respond-
\nent  was disposed of by the Court and the  rectification  as
\nprayed was ordered. The respondent’s solicitors\t immediately
\nintimated  the result of the suit to the Assistant  Superin-
\ntendent\t and sent a copy of the deed showing the  rectifica-
\ntions  made in the original document.  A similar letter\t was
\nalso sent to the Collector of  Bombay.\tOn the 1st February,
\n1946, the respondent’s solictors enquired of
\n539<\/span>
\nthe Assistant Superintendent of Stamps whether he was agree-
\nable to make a reference under section 56 (2) to the  appel-
\nlant,  as  the question of liability to pay the\t stamp\tduty
\nand.  penalty  involved important questions   of   law.\t   A
\npetition  on behalf   of  the respondent to  the   appellant
\nwas  also filed on  the 5th of February\t in  which  it\t was
\nprayed that either the order of the Assistant Superintendent
\nof  Stamps be rescinded or in the alternative a case may  be
\nreferred  under section 57 of the Stamp Act for the  opinion
\nof  the High Court.  This petition was rejected on  the\t 4th
\nJuly, 1946.  The respondent there- upon filed a petition  in
\nthe  High  Court on the 19th of July, 1946, praying  that  a
\nwrit  of certiorari may be issued against the appellant,  or
\nan  order  may be made against him under section 45  of\t the
\nSpecific  Relief Act, to cancel the levy of the\t stamp\tduty
\nand penalty as claimed on behalf of the appellant or in\t the
\nalter- native the appellant may be ordered under section  57
\nof  the Stamp Act to refer the matter to the High Court\t for
\nits opinion.  The matter came for hearing before Mr. Justice
\nBlagden who did not grant the first relief but directed\t the
\nappellant to state a case under section 57 of the Stamp\t Act
\nto the Court for its opinion.  The appellant filed an appeal
\nbut failed. He has now come in appeal to this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Two  points have been urged on behalf of the  appelant.
\nThe  first  is whether under section 57 of  the\t  Stamp\t Act
\nthere is an obligation on the appellant to state a case, and
\nif  not\t whether the High Court had jurisdiction to  give  a
\ndirection to that effect. The second point is whether having
\nregard\tto the terms of section 226 (1)of the Government  of
\nIndia  Act, 1935, the High Court had jurisdiction  to  order
\nthe appellant to state the case, it being a matter  relating
\nto  the revenue. Under this head it is also argued that\t the
\nmatter had proceeded beyond the stage of assessment  and,had
\nreached the stage of recovery.\tTherefore, the High
\nCourt  of  Bombay had no jurisdiction to pass the  order  it
\ndid.  The material part of section 57 of the Stamp Act\truns
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
  “57. (1) The Chief Controlling Revenue-authority
\n   70<\/span>
\n540<\/span>
\nmay state any case referred to it under section 56,
\nsub-section (2), or otherwise coming to its notice, and
\nrefer such case, with its own opinion thereon-\n<\/p>\n
*\t   *\t\t*\t     *\n<\/p>\n
    (b) if it arises in the province of Bombay, to the\tHigh
\nCourt at Bombay;  ……..  ”\n<\/p>\n
\t    Section 226 (1) of the Government of India Act-
\n\t    1935, runs as follows :–<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    “226. (1) Until otherwise provided by Act of the
\nappropriate  legislature,  no  High  Court  shall  have\t any
\noriginal   jurisdiction\t  in  any  matter   concerning\t the
\nrevenue,  or  concerning  any act ordered  or  done  in\t the
\ncollection  thereof  according\tto the\tusage  and  practice
\nof  the\t country or the law for the time  being\t in  force.”
\nOn   behalf   of  the  appellant  it   is   contended\tthat
\nthe  very  words  of  section  57  of  the  Stamp  Act\tshow
\nthat  it  is  a\t power given to the  appellant\tto  state  a
\ncase  and  it is not an obligation. The\t section  is  framed
\nand  worded  only  to  give  the  benefit  thereof  to\t the
\nappellant and it is not for the’ benefit of any other party.
\nThe word “may” used in the section was deliberately used for
\nthat purpose.  It was pointed out that under section 56\t (2)
\nof  the\t Stamp\tAct if the Collector felt doubt\t as  to\t the
\namount of duty with which the instrument was chargeable\t “he
\nmay  draw up a statement of the case and refer it  with\t his
\nopinion\t for the decision of the Chief\tControlling  Revenue
\nAuthority.”   Similarly under section 60 if any\t Court\tfelt
\ndoubt  as  to the amount of duty to be paid  it\t was   given
\npower to draw up a statement of case for the opinion of\t the
\nHigh  Court.   It was argued that both these  sections\tgave
\nonly power to the Collector and the   Court to make a refer-
\nence for their own benefit. Section   57, it was argued, was
\non  the same lines for the benefit   of the  appellant.\t  In
\nnone of these, any other party\t had any right to insist  on
\na reference.  It was pointed   out that under the Stamp\t Act
\na  Collector could certify   that the document was  properly
\nstamped,  although    it was not sufficiently stamped  on  a
\ntrue  construction,   and when such a certificate was  given
\nthe  Controlling   Authority could do nothing.\tHe  had\t not
\neven the
\n541<\/span>
\npower to refer that case to the Court to levy a higher stamp
\nduty.\tFor these reasons, it was contended that the  scheme
\nof the Stamp Act was materially different from the scheme of
\nthe Income Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
    In our opinion the appellant’s contentions are  unsound.
\nThe first contention that section 57 of the Stamp Act  gives
\nonly a discretion and does not cast a duty on the  appellant
\nto  make a reference overlooks the fact that  the  appellant
\nhas  not to make a reference only when he is in doubt  about
\nhis  decision  or conclusion.  In his conclusion  the  party
\nliable\tto pay the assessed stamp duty is materially  inter-
\nested.\t The appellant’s decision is not  necessarily  based
\nonly  on the reading of the entries in the Schedule  to\t the
\nStamp Act.  As in the present case, the question under\twhat
\nitem stamp duty is leviable may depend on the true construc-
\ntion of a document.  It may also involve the decision of the
\nquestion,  as in the present case, as to what is the  effect
\nof  the Court’s order directing a rectification of  the\t in-
\nstrument.   It does not appear, on principle, sound to\thold
\nthat  these  difficult questions should be  left  under\t the
\nStamp Act to the final decision of the appellant, and if the
\nparty affected by the assessment has a grievance there is no
\nrelief\tat all in law for him.\tThe construction of a  docu-
\nment is not always an easy matter and on the ground that  it
\nis a substantial question of law, parties have been  permit-
\nted  to take the matter up to the highest Court.  If so,  it
\nappears difficult to start with the assumption that  because
\nthis  is a Revenue Act the decision of the appellant  should
\nbe  considered final and conclusive. The provisions of\tsec-
\ntion 56 (2) and section 60 giving power to the Collector and
\nthe  Court to send a statement of case to the appellant\t and
\nthe  High  Court respectively, in our  opinion,\t instead  of
\nhelping the appellant, go against his contention.  In  those
\ntwo sections this power is given when the referring authori-
\nty  has\t a doubt to solve for himself.\tThe absence  of\t the
\nwords  “feels doubt as to the amount of duty to be  paid  in
\nrespect\t of an instrument” in section 57 supports  the\tview
\nthat  the reference contemplated under that section  if\t not
\nfor the benefit of the appellant only but enures
\n542<\/span>
\nalso  for the benefit of the party affected by\tthe  assess-
\nment.  In our opinion, the power contained in section 57  is
\nin the nature of an obligation or is coupled with an obliga-
\ntion and under the circumstances can be demanded to be\tused
\nalso by the parties affected by the assessment of the  stamp
\nduty.\n<\/p>\n
    Our\t attention has been drawn in this connection to\t the
\ndecision  of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council  in
\nAlcock,\t Ashdown  &  Co. Ltd. v.  Chief\t Revenue  Authority,
\nBombay\t(1).  In that case a question arose about an  asses-
\nsee’s right to ask the Commissioner of Income Tax to state a
\ncase  for the opinion of the Court under section 51  of\t the
\nIndian\tIncome\tTax  Act, 1918. The material  part  of\tthat
\nsection was in these terms :–\n<\/p>\n
    “51. (1) If, in the course of any assessment under\tthis
\nAct  or any proceeding in connection therewith other than  a
\nproceeding  under  Chapter VII, a question has\tarisen\twith
\nreference to the interpretation of any\t   of the provisions
\nof  this  Act or of any rule thereunder, the  Chief  Revenue
\nAuthority may, either on its own motion or on reference from
\nany  Revenue officer subordinate to it, draw up a  statement
\nof the case, and refer it, with its own opinion thereon,  to
\nthe High Court, and shall so refer any such question on\t the
\napplication of the assessee, unless it is satisfied that the
\napplication is frivolous or that a reference is unnecessary.
\n   (3)The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall
\ndecide\tthe questions raised thereby, and shall deliver\t its
\njudgment thereon containing the grounds on which such  deci-
\nsion is rounded, and shall send to the Revenue authority  by
\nwhich the case was stated a copy of such judgment under\t the
\nseal  of the Court and the signature of the  Registrar,\t and
\nthe Revenue-authority shall dispose of the case accordingly,
\nor, if the case arose on reference from any  Revenue-officer
\nsubordinate to it, shall forward a copy of such judgment  to
\nsuch  officer who shall dispose of the case  conformably  to
\nsuch judgment”.\n<\/p>\n
In that case, after the assessment was made and
\n(1) 50 I.A., 227.\n<\/p>\n
543<\/span><\/p>\n
the proceedings went to the Commissioner of Income Tax,\t the
\nassessee requested that a case may be stated for the opinion
\nof  the Court under the aforesaid section,  but the  Commis-
\nsioner\trefused\t to do so.  Thereupon, a Rule  was  obtained
\nfrom the High Court calling upon the Chief Revenue  Authori-
\nty, Bombay, to show cause why a case should not be so  stat-
\ned.  It was argued before the High Court that the Court\t had
\nno  jurisdiction to order the Commissioner to state  a\tcase
\nfor its opinion.  When the matter reached the Privy  Council
\nthe  objection\tto the jurisdiction was\t put  more  broadly.
\nBefore\tthe High Court the only question raised was  whether
\nthe  Authority had a duty, in the circumstances, to state  a
\ncase.  The point raised before the Judicial Committee of the
\nPrivy  Council\ttook  the form of saying that  even  if\t the
\nAuthority  had\ta duty, the Court could not require  him  to
\nexercise  it; and for this purpose reliance was placed\tupon
\nthe  well-known\t general purview of the\t Indian\t Legislation
\nwhich  excludes matter of revenue from the consideration  of
\nthe  ordinary civil Courts, the principle being\t exemplified
\nin  the case of Spooner v. Juddow (1 ) and upon section\t 106
\n(2)of  the Government of India Act, 1915.  The\tjudgment  of
\nthe  Board consisting of Viscount Haldane,  Lord  Phillimore
\nand  Lord Carson was delivered by Lord Phillimore.   In\t the
\njudgment  it  is  stated as follows :–” It  is\t said  that,
\nthough under this section, the Chief Revenue Authority\tmay,
\nif he thinks fit, draw up a statement of the case and  refer
\nit  to the High Court he is not bound to do so even  on\t the
\napplication of the person to be assessed, if he is satisfied
\nthat  the application is frivolous or that the reference  is
\nunnecessary  and that the Authority has in the present\tcase
\nshown  that he is satisfied that the application was  frivo-
\nlous and the reference was unnecessary.”  This argument\t was
\nrejected  by the High Court.  Their Lordships of  the  Privy
\nCouncil agreed with the view of the High Court that this was
\ntoo  narrow a construction of the section.   They  observed:
\n“Take  first  the case which is last in the clause.  If\t the
\nassessee  applies  for a case the Authority  must  state  it
\nunless he can
\n(1) (1850) 4 Moo. I.A. 353.\n<\/p>\n
544<\/span><\/p>\n
say that it is frivolous or unnecessary.  He is not to\twait
\nfor  the court to order him to do it  will be a\t misfeasance
\nand  a breach of the statutory duty if he does not do  it  ”
\nThe judgment did not end by relying only on that portion  of
\nsection\t 51 (1)of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1918.  It\tpro-
\nceeds to state as follows :–“Put that case aside.  The rule
\nhere is supported upon the earlier part of the section.\t  No
\ndoubt that part does not say that he shall state a case,  it
\nonly  says that he may.\t And as the learned counsel for\t the
\nrespondent  rightly  urged,  ‘may’ does\t not  mean  ‘shall’.
\nNeither are the words ‘it shall be lawful’ those of  compul-
\nsion.  Only the capacity or power is given to the Authority.
\nBut when a capacity or power is given to a public  authority
\nthere  may  be circumstances which couple with the  power  a
\nduty to exercise it.  To use the language of Lord Cairns  in
\nthe case of Julius v. Bishop of Oxford (1):  ‘ There may  be
\nsomething  in the nature of the thing empowered to be  done,
\nsomething  in the object for which it is to be\tdone,  some-
\nthing in the conditions under which it is to be done,  some-
\nthing in the title of the person or persons for whose  bene-
\nfit the power is to be exercised, which may couple the power
\nwith a duty,  and make it the duty of the person in whom the
\npower is reposed to exercise that power when called upon  to
\ndo  so.’   In their Lordships’ view, always  supposing\tthat
\nthere is a serious point of law to be considered, there does
\nlie a duty upon the Chief Revenue Authority to state a\tcase
\nfor the opinion of the Court, and if he does not  appreciate
\nthat  there is such a serious point, it is in the  power  of
\nthe Court to control him and to order him to state a case.”\n<\/p>\n
     This reasoning and conclusions, although they have\t not
\nnow  the compelling force they had before the 26th of  Janu-
\nary,  1950, are entitled to great respect. Apart from  that,
\nwe  entirely agree with that line of reasoning and the\tcon-
\nclusion.  In our opinion, in ‘the present case the power  to
\nmake a reference under section 57 is not only for the  bene-
\nfit of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
(1.) 5 A.C. 214, 222.\n<\/p>\n
545<\/span><\/p>\n
It  is coupled with a duty cast on him, as a public  officer
\nto  do the right thing and when an important  and  intricate
\nquestion of law in respect of the construction of a document
\narises,\t as  a\tpublic servant it is his duty  to  make\t the
\nreference.   If he omits to do so it is within the power  of
\nthe  Court to direct him to discharge that duty and  make  a
\nreference to the Court.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr. Daphtary on behalf of the appellant tried to distin-
\nguish this case on the ground that the scheme of the  Income
\nTax Act was different from the scheme of the Stamp Act.\t  In
\nour  opinion, the observations quoted above and the  princi-
\nples underlying the same are applicable to the duty cast  on
\nthe  appellant under section 57 of the Stamp Act  and  minor
\npoints\tof distinction between the schemes of the  two\tActs
\nare immaterial for the present discussion.  In the words  of
\nLord  Cairns  the very nature of the thing empowered  to  be
\ndone by the appellant and the conditions under which he\t has
\nto  fix\t the amount of the duty, couple the power  with\t the
\nduty  to  state\t a case for the opinion of  the\t Court.\t The
\nprovisions  of section 51 (1) and (a) run on the same  lines
\nas section 59 of the Stamp Act.\t Mr.  Daphtary next  pointed
\nout  that there was a difference in the scheme of  the\tAct,
\nbecause\t when the Collector issued a certificate under\tsec-
\ntion  32,  even though his assessment might  be\t faulty\t and
\nagainst\t the interest of the State, the State or the  appel-
\nlant  had  no remedy. This overlooks the provisions  of\t the
\nsection\t empowering the Collector to issue the\tcertificate.
\nThe scheme of the Stamp Act may be briefly noticed.  Chapter
\nII contains provisions about the liability of instruments to
\nduty, of the time of stamping instruments, of valuations for
\nduty  and provisions as to the person by whom duty is  ‘pay-
\nable.  Chapter\tIII which contains only two  sections  deals
\nwith  the adjudication as to stamps. The first (section\t 31)
\nis where an instrument, whether executed or not and  whether
\npreviously stamped or not, is brought to the Collector\twith
\nan application to have his opinion as to the duty with which
\nit is chargeable.  For obtaining that opinion the  applicant
\nhas  to pay a fee.  The Collector may call  for\t information
\nand take evidence.  After he has done so he determines the
\n546<\/span>
\namount of the stamp duty and certifies under section 32 that
\nthe full duty with which it is chargeable has been paid.  It
\nis obvious that the party applying is interested in  obtain-
\ning  the opinion and therefore he cannot object to the\tcer-
\ntificate  of the Collector.  If the Collector himself is  in
\ndoubt  he has the power under section 56 (2) to ask for\t the
\nopinion\t of  the appellant. It is therefore  clear  that  in
\nrespect of these two provisions under Chapter III no  griev-
\nance could exist on either side.  From section 33 and  Chap-
\nter IV onwards there are provisions in which the opinion  of
\nthe Stamp Officer and of the party interested in paying\t the
\nstamp  duty may come in conflict.  The sections in  Chapters
\nIV,  V and VI ending with section 61, deal  with  situations
\narising\t from  such difference of opinion.  Section  57\t (1)
\nfalls  under this heading.  In our opinion, therefore,\tthis
\ncontention of the appellant fails.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t next  point urged was whether the  High  Court\t has
\njurisdiction to order the Revenue Authority to state a\tcase
\nin  face of the provisions of section 226 of the  Government
\nof  India Act, 1935.  The argument was urged in\t two  parts:
\nFirstly, that this being a. revenue matter, the jurisdiction
\nof  the Court was excluded.  Secondly, that the\t matter\t had
\nceased to be in the stage of assessment but had reached\t the
\nstage  of  collection  of stamp duty.  On  that\t ground\t the
\npresent\t case was sought to be distinguished  from  Alcock’s
\ncase(1). In our opinion this argument of the appellant\tmust
\nalso  fail.  A similar argument based on the wording of\t the
\ncorresponding  section\t106 (2) of the Government  of  India
\nAct,  1915,  as\t mentioned  above,  was\t urged\tin  Alcock’s
\ncase(1).  On that point their Lordships observed as  follows
\n:–” Upon the point thus broadly stated their Lordships have
\nno  difficulty in pronouncing a decision.  To argue that  if
\nthe  legislature says that a public officer, even a  revenue
\nofficer, shall do a thing and he, without cause or  justifi-
\ncation,\t refused to ,do that thing, yet the Specific  Relief
\nAct  would not be applicable and there would be no power  in
\nthe Court to compel him to give relief to the subject is  to
\nstate a
\n(1) 50 I.A. 227.\n<\/p>\n
547<\/span><\/p>\n
proposition  to which their Lordships must  refuse  assent.”
\nIn dealing with the argument that because of section 106 (2)
\nof the Government of India Act, 1915, the High Court had  no
\njurisdiction  to make the order, the Board observed as\tfol-
\nlows :–” In their Lordships’ view the order of a High Court
\nto  a revenue officer to do his statutory duty would not  be
\nthe exercise of original jurisdiction in any matter concern-
\ning the revenue.” In our opinion, in the present case  also,
\nthe  respondent seeks the Court’s intervention to  make\t the
\nappellant perform his statutory duty to state a case.\tThat
\nis not exercising the original jurisdiction of the Court  in
\nany  matter  concerning the revenue. It is only\t asking\t the
\nappellant to perform his statutory duty.  The further  argu-
\nment that the proceedings in this case had passed beyond the
\nstage  of assessment and had reached the stage of  enforcing
\npayment is again irrelevant because by the relief granted by
\nthe  High Court no attempt is made to obstruct\tthe  Revenue
\nAuthority  in the discharge of his duties.  At one stage  an
\ninjunction  was granted against the appellant but  that\t has
\nbeen  cancelled.  In fact, this aspect of the discussion  is
\nonly academic because if payment is enforced and the opinion
\nof  the Court, on the statement of the case is\tagainst\t the
\nappellant,  he\twill  have to act in  conformity  with\tthat
\nopinion\t under\tsection 59 (2) of the Stamp Act\t and  refund
\nwhatever may be held to be recovered in excess.
\n    In\tour opinion therefore the contentions of the  appel-
\nlant fail and the appeal is dismissed with costs.
\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the appellant: R.S. Narula..\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the respondent: Tanubhai C. Desai.\n<\/p>\n
71<\/span>
\n548<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chief Controlling Revenue … vs Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd on 27 May, 1950 Equivalent citations: 1950 AIR 218, 1950 SCR 536 Author: H J Kania Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj) PETITIONER: CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITYANDSUPERINTENDENT OF STAM Vs. RESPONDENT: MAHARASHTRA SUGAR MILLS LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/05\/1950 BENCH: KANIA, HIRALAL J. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-226119","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChief Controlling Revenue ... vs Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd on 27 May, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chief Controlling Revenue ... vs Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd on 27 May, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1950-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-29T13:17:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chief Controlling Revenue … vs Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd on 27 May, 1950\",\"datePublished\":\"1950-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-29T13:17:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950\"},\"wordCount\":4000,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950\",\"name\":\"Chief Controlling Revenue ... vs Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd on 27 May, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1950-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-29T13:17:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chief Controlling Revenue … vs Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd on 27 May, 1950\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chief Controlling Revenue ... vs Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd on 27 May, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chief Controlling Revenue ... vs Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd on 27 May, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1950-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-29T13:17:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chief Controlling Revenue … vs Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd on 27 May, 1950","datePublished":"1950-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-29T13:17:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950"},"wordCount":4000,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950","name":"Chief Controlling Revenue ... vs Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd on 27 May, 1950 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1950-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-29T13:17:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-controlling-revenue-vs-maharashtra-sugar-mills-ltd-on-27-may-1950#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chief Controlling Revenue … vs Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd on 27 May, 1950"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226119","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=226119"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226119\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226119"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226119"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226119"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}