1961 (2) TMI 64 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of sections 31, 32, and 33 of the Stamp Act

In this case, the respondent filed a petition challenging the imposition of stamp duty by the Collector, which was upheld by a full bench of the High Court. The key issue revolves around the interpretation of sections 31, 32, and 33 of the Stamp Act. Section 31 outlines the process where an instrument is brought to the Collector for determination of duty, section 32 deals with certification of duty payment, and section 33 pertains to impounding instruments not duly stamped. The crux of the matter is whether the Collector had the authority to impound the document after determining the duty payable.

The High Court held that the words "is produced or comes in the performance of his functions" in section 33 refer to the production of the instrument as evidence or for reliance by parties. It was also noted that paying the full stamp duty is essential for the instrument to be admitted into evidence or acted upon. The State referred to various sections of the Act, emphasizing the consequences of seeking the Collector's opinion on duty determination before or after execution of the instrument.

The primary contention was whether the Collector, after determining the duty payable, had the power to impound the document under section 33. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Act, highlighting that seeking the Collector's opinion under section 31 does not automatically lead to impoundment under section 33. The Collector's role ends after determining the duty, especially in cases where the instrument is executed and brought for duty determination post-execution.

The Court emphasized that the Collector becomes functus officio after determining the duty, citing precedents where impoundment was not permitted once the duty was determined. The doctrine of functus officio was applied to establish that after determining the duty, the Collector's authority to impound ceases. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Collector had no authority to impound the instrument after determining the duty payable.