Supreme Court refers Indian Stamp Act fraud question to larger bench

The case concerns a dispute over whether the statutory machinery under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act could validly be initiated to demand additional stamp duty on a land transfer deed, specifically questioning if fraudulent intent is a necessary condition for such a reference.

Who it concerns: Appellant: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited; Respondents: The District Revenue Officer (Stamps) & Anr.; Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta.

What the court decided

• The Court noted that the core issue is whether the statutory machinery under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act could validly have been set in motion.
• The Court identified two narrow exceptions under which a writ court may entertain a challenge to a show cause notice: want of jurisdiction and abuse of jurisdiction (mala fide exercise).
• The Court observed that the present case does not fall within the category of 'want of jurisdiction' as the District Revenue Officer is the competent authority.
• The Court distinguished between an authority possessing no jurisdiction and the manner in which an existing jurisdiction is set in motion.

Also in the document

• The judgment is marked as 'NON-REPORTABLE'.
• The Court stated that the enquiry into the true market value is statutorily entrusted to the competent authority (Collector) and is not for the Supreme Court to determine at this stage.
• The Court noted that the Single Judge had quashed the show cause notice, while the Division Bench had restored the proceedings to the District Revenue Officer.