Home  /  Indian Stamp Act  /  Section 58

Section 58: Power of High Court to call for further particulars as to case stated

Indian Stamp Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1899
Section 57 All 78 Sections Schedule I (Arts 1–65) Section 59

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 58

Section 58 empowers the High Court, upon receiving a case stated by the CCRA under Section 57, to remit the case back to the revenue authority for additions, alterations, or further particulars if it finds the stated facts insufficient to decide the questions of law raised.

  • Consultative Supervisory Jurisdiction: Operates within the advisory and consultative jurisdiction of the High Court on fiscal references, ensuring the court decides questions of law upon an adequate and accurate factual foundation.
  • Power to Remit for Additions or Alterations: If the High Court is not satisfied that the statements contained in the reference are sufficient to determine the question, it may refer the case back to the CCRA with specific directions to make additions or alterations.
  • Prohibition Against De Novo Trial by High Court: The High Court does not take oral evidence or conduct a trial of facts on reference; it must rely strictly on the statement of facts certified by the revenue authority, supplemented pursuant to Section 58.
  • Binding Directives on Factual Supplementation: The CCRA is bound to comply with the High Court's remit directions by taking additional evidence, examining documents, and submitting an amended statement of case.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd., AIR 1950 SC 218: The Supreme Court held that the High Court's consultative jurisdiction under the Stamp Act requires complete factual clarity, and Section 58 is the procedural mechanism to ensure no legal question is answered in a factual vacuum.
  • Board of Revenue, U.P. v. Electronic Industries, AIR 1980 All 1: The Allahabad High Court remitted a stated case under Section 58 because the Board of Revenue had omitted crucial terms of a foreign technical collaboration agreement essential to determine whether it constituted an agreement or a conveyance.
  • CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., AIR 1961 SC 1633: A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court laid down the general principles governing consultative reference jurisdictions, holding that courts have inherent and statutory power under provisions like Section 58 to require the referring tribunal to state omitted material facts.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When a reference under Section 57 reaches the High Court and you discover that the CCRA drafted the statement of case with a pro-revenue bias or omitted vital contractual covenants, file an interlocutory application under Section 58 at the threshold. Pray for an order remitting the reference back to the CCRA with explicit instructions to incorporate the omitted agreements, correspondence, and technical schedules into an amended case statement.

Section 57 All 78 Sections Schedule I (Arts 1–65) Section 59