Section 60 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 57 lets the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority take a stamp duty case to the High Court. Section 60 gives the same access to a court that is hearing a matter in which an instrument is tendered and the Judge is unsure of the duty to be paid under proviso (a) to section 35.
If a Court, other than a Court mentioned in section 57, feels doubt as to the amount of duty to be paid on an instrument under proviso (a) to section 35, the Judge may draw up a statement of the case and refer it with his own opinion to the High Court to which, if he were the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority, he would refer it under section 57. The High Court deals with it as if referred under section 57 and sends a copy of its judgment, under seal and signed by the Registrar, to the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority and another like copy to the Judge, who disposes of the case conformably to it. A reference by a Court subordinate to a District Court goes through the District Court; one by a subordinate Revenue Court goes through the Court immediately superior.
Context
This article follows the consolidated text of the Act consulted (latest amendment shown: Act 13 of 2021); later amendments should be checked. Stamp duty on most instruments is fixed by the law and schedule of the State where the instrument is executed, so the State of execution must be checked. This article explains the central Act only. Section 60 does not fix any duty. It provides a route for a doubt about the amount. If a stamp duty question has arisen in a case you are conducting, our legal dispute resolution team can advise on how to frame it.
Section 60 depends on two other sections. Proviso (a) to section 35, which allows an instrument to be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty or deficiency with a penalty, is covered in Section 35. The High Court procedure is in Sections 57 to 59.
Sub-section (1): the Judge's reference
"If any Court, other than a Court mentioned in section 57, feels doubt as to the amount of duty to be paid in respect of any instrument under proviso (a) to section 35, the Judge may draw up a statement of the case and refer it, with his own opinion thereon, for the decision of the High Court to which, if he were the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority, he would, under section 57, refer the same."
The elements
| Element | Text |
|---|---|
| Who | "Any Court, other than a Court mentioned in section 57" |
| Doubt | As to "the amount of duty to be paid in respect of any instrument under proviso (a) to section 35" |
| Action | The Judge "may" draw up a statement of the case |
| Content | The statement, "with his own opinion thereon" |
| To whom | The High Court to which he would refer the case under section 57 if he were the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority |
Several points follow from the wording.
- Which courts. Section 57 speaks of the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority and High Courts. The words "a Court mentioned in section 57" are printed as they appear, and the text consulted does not say more about which court is meant. The section is aimed at the other courts before whom an instrument is tendered. A reader should follow the text as printed.
- What kind of doubt. The doubt is about the amount of duty, and arises in the context of admission under proviso (a) to section 35. A doubt about whether the instrument is genuine, or about the substance of the dispute, is not within the section.
- Which High Court. The Judge reads section 57 as if he held the office of the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority. The High Court that results is the one for the State or Union territory in section 57(1). The copy's list of Union territories is not brought up to date and the reader should check the current law.
- Power. The Judge "may" refer. It is not a duty.
Sub-section (2): treatment and return
"Such Court shall deal with the case as if it had been referred under section 57, and send a copy of its judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar to the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority and another like copy to the Judge making the reference, who shall, on receiving such copy, dispose of the case conformably to such judgment."
So, in this route:
- The High Court deals with the case "as if it had been referred under section 57". The bench rule of not less than three Judges, the power to call for further particulars and the duty to deliver a judgment with grounds follow from sections 57 to 59.
- A copy of the judgment under the seal of the Court and the Registrar's signature goes to the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority. This keeps the revenue side informed.
- Another like copy goes to the Judge making the reference.
- The Judge "shall ... dispose of the case conformably to such judgment". He is bound by it.
The footnote marker after the words "High Court" shows that some words were omitted from the section. The numbering of the footnote markers around sections 59 and 60 does not match the footnotes printed, so no further detail is given.
Sub-section (3): the route for subordinate courts
"References made under sub-section (1), when made by a Court subordinate to a District Court, shall be made through the District Court, and, when made by any subordinate Revenue Court, shall be made through the Court immediately superior."
| Court making the reference | Route |
|---|---|
| A Court subordinate to a District Court | Through the District Court |
| Any subordinate Revenue Court | Through the Court immediately superior |
| Any other Court | Directly, under sub-section (1) |
The word "shall" makes the route mandatory. The text does not say what the District Court or the superior Revenue Court does with the reference as it passes through, and it does not say whether either may refuse to forward it. The reader should not read more into it than is printed.
Worked example
In a recovery suit before a civil court subordinate to a District Court, Anand Verma tenders a loan agreement on which the court is unsure of the duty payable under proviso (a) to section 35. The Judge frames a statement of the case with his own opinion and, because his court is subordinate to the District Court, sends it through the District Court to the High Court that would apply under section 57. The High Court deals with it as if referred under section 57, and sends copies of its judgment to the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority and to the Judge. The Judge disposes of the case in line with the judgment. The sequence is only an illustration of the steps in the section.
Practical points
- The reference lies only for doubt on the amount of duty under proviso (a) to section 35.
- The Judge decides whether to refer; a party cannot compel it under section 60.
- A court may still consider the revision route in section 61 once an order of admission has been made; see Section 61.
- The text consulted contains no time limit and no form for the statement of case.
Need help with a stamp duty question in court?
If the duty on a document is in doubt in a pending case, the way the question is raised matters. Our legal dispute resolution team can help you prepare for it.
Key takeaways
- A Court in doubt about the amount of duty under proviso (a) to section 35 may refer a statement of the case, with its opinion, to the High Court.
- The High Court is the one to which the Judge would refer under section 57 if he were the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority.
- The High Court deals with it as if referred under section 57 and sends copies of its judgment to the Revenue-authority and to the Judge.
- The Judge disposes of the case conformably to the judgment.
- References from subordinate courts go through the District Court, or through the Court immediately superior for a subordinate Revenue Court.
Read next
- Sections 57 to 59 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899: reference of a stamp duty case to the High Court
- Section 61 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899: revision of court orders on sufficiency of stamps
- Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899: instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence
- Instruments not duly stamped: inadmissible as evidence
Disclaimer: Based on the consolidated text of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 published by the Department of Revenue, whose latest amendment shown is Act 13 of 2021, as consulted on 2 October 2026. Only the central text is covered: stamp duty on most instruments is fixed by the law and schedule of the State where the instrument is executed, and State amendments, rules, notifications and later amendments should be checked. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.