2007 (10) TMI 687 - SC - Indian Laws

Refund - stamp duty - Improper description - Admissibility of a photocopy of an improperly stamped original document as secondary evidence - eviction of the tenant from the shop - Interpretation of statues - HELD THAT - On a plain reading of Section 48-B of Indian Stamp (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1990, we do not find that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that by virtue of this provision the Collector has been authorized 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 authorized 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 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. 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 authorizes 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 authorize the Collector to impound the copy of the instrument. Thus, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of a photocopy of an improperly stamped original document as secondary evidence.
2. Authority of the court to impound a photocopy of an instrument under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
3. Applicability of Section 37 and Rule 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules, 1942.
4. Interpretation of Section 48-B of the Indian Stamp (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1990.

Summary:

1. Admissibility of a photocopy of an improperly stamped original document as secondary evidence:
The appellant sought to admit a photocopy of an agreement as secondary evidence u/s 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, claiming the original was stolen. The trial court allowed this, but the High Court reversed the decision, stating that a photocopy of an improperly stamped original document cannot be admitted in evidence.

2. Authority of the court to impound a photocopy of an instrument under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899:
The court examined Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which deal with the examination and impounding of instruments and the inadmissibility of unstamped instruments in evidence. It was concluded that these sections apply only to original instruments and not to copies. The law is well-settled that a copy of an instrument cannot be validated by impounding.

3. Applicability of Section 37 and Rule 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules, 1942:
Section 37 allows for the certification of an instrument with a stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description. Rule 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules, 1942, permits the Collector to certify such instruments as duly stamped upon payment of the proper duty. However, these provisions apply only to original instruments and not to copies.

4. Interpretation of Section 48-B of the Indian Stamp (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1990:
Section 48-B allows the Collector to require the production of the original instrument if a deficiency in stamp duty is noticed from a copy. If the original is not produced, it is presumed to be inadequately stamped, and the Collector may proceed to recover the duty. This section does not authorize the impounding of a copy of the instrument.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the photocopy of the improperly stamped original document cannot be admitted as secondary evidence, and Sections 33, 35, 37, and 48-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and related rules apply only to original instruments. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.