TMI Blog1962 (2) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... moneys on furnishing security and were permitted to do so. Thereupon a registered security bond was executed and registered in Shimla in 1949 by which a house there was given in security for withdrawal of the money. Before, however, the money could be withdrawn, the Inspector of Stamps reported on March 15, 1950, that the so called security bond was in reality a mortgage deed without possession and was insufficiently stamped. He therefore reported that it should be impounded and the deficit stamp duty of ₹ 482/11/- and a penalty amounting to ₹ 4,826/14/- should be levied with respect to that document. Thereupon on April 5, 1950, the Deputy Commissioner, Kheri, acting as Collector passed the following order :- In case the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter to the Board of Revenue under s. 56(2) of the Act. In July 1951 the Board of Revenue disposed of the matter and upheld the order of the Collector. But the respondents' complaint was that the Board of Revenue also did not give them a hearing. Consequently they filed a writ petition in the High Court in November 1951. That petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that neither the Act nor the Rules made thereunder provided that any bearing should be given to the person who was liable to pay the deficit stamp duty and the penalty. He further held that in any case the Collector had given an opportunity to the respondents to urge their objections in writing, and that the Board of Revenue had also considered the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... give a hearing according to the principles of natural justice, in accordance with the decision of that court in Special Appeal No. 291 of 1955, Ghanshyamdas Gupta v. The, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. They therefore set aside the order of the Board of Revenue on the ground that no hearing had been given to the respondents. Thereupon on application for leave to appeal to this Court was made to the High Court, which was allowed ; and that is how the matter has come before us. The main contention of the appellant before us is that the High Court having held that the Board was acting merely administratively when proceeding under s.56 (2) of the Act went wrong in holding that it was bound under the principles of natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s chargeable, he may draw up a statement of the case, and refer it, 'with his own opinion thereon, for the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue authority. Section 31 deals with the case when any instrument is brought to the Collector, and the person bringing it applies to have the opinion of that officer as to the duty (if any) with which it is chargeable. It is then the duty of the Collector either to determine the duty (if any) with which, in his judgment the instrument is chargeable or to refer the case to the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority under s.56(2) if he has any doubt in the matter. Section 40 deals with the case where an instrument is impounded under s.33 or the Collector receives any instrument sent to him under s.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or in regard to an instrument which comes up before him under the above provisions of the Act as to the construction of the instrument and the provisions of the Act applicable to it. Such doubt itself shows that the point raised for the Collector's decision is a difficult point of law and from the very nature of the duty to be performed in such circumstances it appears clear that the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority has to decide the matter judicially and would thus be a quasijudicial tribunal. As pointed out by us in C.A. 132 of 1959, the question whether an authority, like the Board of Revenue, acts judicially is to be gathered from the express provisions of the Act, in the first instance. Where however the provisions of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pure question of law which may-result in payment of large amounts by the executants of the document, it would not in our opinion be improper to hold that for the determination of such a question the legislature intended that the party affected by the decision of the Board of Revenue should be given a hearing, and that the Board should act judicially in deciding a pure question of law. The fact that the decision will depend upon the opinion of the Board cannot in any way make any difference for the determination of questions of law must always depend upon the opinion arrived at judicially of the person or authority who has to determine it, and that will not necessarily mean that the person determining it cannot possibly be required to act ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
