Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Provided that no action under this section shall be taken after a period of five years from the date of execution of such instrument.‖

21. The Supreme Court on reading of Section 48-B observed:

―19. On a plain reading of Section 48-B, we do not find that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that by virtue of this provision the Collector has been authorised to impound even copy of the instrument, is correct. Under this section where the deficiency of stamp duty is noticed from the copy of any instrument, the Collector may call for the original document for inspection, and on failure to produce the original instrument could presume that proper stamp duty was not paid on the original instrument and, thus, recover the same from the person concerned. Section 48-B does not relate to the instrument i.e. the original document to be presented before any person who is authorised to receive the document in evidence to be impounded on inadequacy of stamp duty found. The section uses the phraseology ―where the deficiency of stamp duty is noticed from a copy of any instrument‖. Therefore, when the deficiency of stamp duty from a copy of the instrument is noticed by the Collector, the Collector is authorised to act under this section. On deficiency of stamp duty being noticed from the copy of the instrument, the Collector would order production of original instrument from a person in possession or in custody of the original instrument. Production is required by the Collector for the purpose of satisfying himself whether adequate stamp duty had been paid on the original instrument or not. In the notice given to person in possession or in custody of original instrument, the Collector shall provide for time within which the original document is required to be produced before him. If, in spite of the notice, the original is not produced before the Collector, the Collector would draw a presumption that original document is not duly stamped and thereafter may proceed in the manner provided in Chapter IV. By virtue of the proviso, the step for recovery of adequate stamp duty on the original instrument on insufficiency of the stamp duty paid being noticed from the copy of the instrument, can only be taken within five years from the date of execution of such instrument. The words ―the Collector may proceed in the manner provided in this Chapter‖ have reference to Section 48 of the Act. Under this section, all duties, penalties and other sums required to be WPC Nos.2663 & 427/2005 Page 16 paid under Chapter IV, which includes stamp duty, would be recovered by the Collector by distress and sale of the movable property of the person who has been called upon to pay the adequate stamp duty or he can implement the method of recovery of arrears of land revenue for the dues of stamp duty. By virtue of proviso to Section 48-B, the Collector's power to adjudicate upon the adequacy of stamp duty on the original instrument on the basis of copy of the instrument is restricted to the period of five years from the date of execution of the original instrument. This section only authorises the Collector to recover the adequate stamp duty which has been avoided at the time of execution of the original instrument. This section does not authorise the Collector to impound the copy of the instrument.‖ (emphasis supplied)

―12. The provisions of Section 29 providing for the persons by whom duties are payable have been left untouched. So is with Section 31 dealing with ―adjudication as to proper stamp‖ which confers power on the Collector to adjudicate upon the duty with which a document shall be chargeable, though such document may or may not have been executed. The scheme of Section 31 involves an element of voluntariness. The person seeking adjudication must have brought the document to the Collector and also applied for such adjudication. The document cannot be compelled to be brought before him by the Collector. Section 33 confers power of impounding a document not duly stamped subject to the document being produced before an authority competent to receive evidence or a person in charge of a public office. It is necessary that the document must have been produced or come before such authority or person in charge in performance of its functions. The document should have been voluntarily produced. At the same time, Section 36 imposes an embargo on the power to impound vesting in the authority competent to WPC Nos.2663 & 427/2005 Page 18 receive evidence, by providing that it cannot question the admission of document in evidence once it has been admitted. None of these provisions have been amended by the State of Andhra Pradesh.
13. In Surajmull Nagoremull v. Triton Insurance Co. Ltd. Their Lordships of the Privy Council made it clear that the provisions of the Stamp Act cannot be held to have been framed solely for the protection of revenue and for the purpose of being enforced solely at the instance of the revenue officials.‖

24. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid paragraphs has emphasized that while exercising the power of impounding under Section 33 of the Act, the authority competent and entitled to receive evidence or a person in charge of public office cannot compel a person to produce the ―instrument‖. The ―instrument‖ has to be produced voluntarily. The Supreme Court approved of two judgments of the Lahore High Court in Jai Devi versus Gokal Chand (1906) 7 Punjab Law Reporter 428(FB) and Mushi Ram versus Harnam Singh AIR 1934 Lah. 637. In the case of Jai Devi (supra) it was held that a document not duly stamped but filed with the plaint, which was dismissed for non prosecution, cannot be subsequently impounded as it was not produced in the court in evidence. It was further observed that the Court cannot call for production of the original document and impound the same. In the case of Munshi Ram (supra) the suit was compromised at the first hearing and the original bahi was not put in evidence. It was held that the bahi was not liable to be impounded. Reference was also made with approval to the judgment L. Puran Chand versus WPC Nos.2663 & 427/2005 Page 19 Emperor AIR 1942 Lah. 257. It was observed that when an unduly stamped document was directed to be returned as not proved, the same cannot be impounded even if the document had not been physically returned.

26. In the subsequent portion of the same judgment provisions of search and seizure were held violating right to privacy. It was observed;

"58. An instrument which is not duly stamped cannot be received in evidence by any person who has authority to receive evidence and it cannot be acted upon by that person or by any public officer. This is the penalty which is imposed by law on the person who may seek to claim any benefit under an instrument if it is not duly stamped. Once detected, the authority competent to impound the document can recover not only duty but also penalty, which provision protects the interest of revenue. In the event of WPC Nos.2663 & 427/2005 Page 20 there being criminal intention or fraud, the persons responsible may be liable to be prosecuted. The availability of these provisions, in our opinion, adequately protects the interest of revenue. Unbridled power available to be exercised by any person whom the Collector may think proper to authorise, without laying down any guidelines as to the persons who may be authorised and without recording the availability of grounds which would give rise to the belief, on the existence whereof only, the power may be exercised, deprives the provision of the quality of reasonableness. Possessing a document not duly stamped is not by itself any offence. Under the garb of the power conferred by Section 73 the person authorised may go on a rampage searching house after house i.e. residences of the persons or the places used for the custody of documents. The possibility of any wild exercise of such power may be remote, but then on the framing of Section 73, the provision impugned herein, the possibility cannot be ruled out. Any number of documents may be inspected, may be seized and may be removed and at the end the whole exercise may turn out to be an exercise in futility. The exercise may prove to be absolutely disproportionate to the purpose sought to be achieved and, therefore, a reasonable nexus between stringency of the provision and the purpose sought to be achieved ceases to exist.‖(Emphasis supplied).