9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether affidavits made for the immediate purpose of being filed in Court are chargeable to stamp duty under the Andhra Pradesh Act 26 of 1965. 2. Interpretation of the term "instrument" as defined in Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899). Detailed Analysis: 1. Chargeability of Affidavits to Stamp Duty: The primary issue addressed in this judgment is whether affidavits made for the immediate purpose of being filed in Court are chargeable to stamp duty under the Andhra Pradesh Act 26 of 1965. The deletion of exemptions from stamp duty in Article 4 of the Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899) raised this question. The court noted that this matter affects the revenue of the State and is likely to be raised frequently in subordinate courts, necessitating a definitive ruling by a Bench. The contention by the appellant's counsel, Mr. Kuppuswamy, was that affidavits which do not come under the definition of "instrument" in Section 2(14) are not liable to stamp duty under Section 3. He argued that the specific exemption under Article 4 for affidavits made for the immediate purpose of being filed in Court was only by way of abundant caution. However, the court disagreed, concluding that the deletion of the exemption in Article 4(b) makes such affidavits liable to stamp duty. 2. Interpretation of "Instrument": The court examined the definition of "instrument" under Section 2(14) of the Act, which states: "Instrument includes every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded." The appellant's argument was that the term "includes" should be read as "means and includes," implying an exhaustive definition. Thus, only those affidavits that create, transfer, limit, extend, extinguish, or record any right or liability should be chargeable to stamp duty. The court, however, interpreted the term "includes" as generally having an extensive application, adding to the generic meaning of the word "instrument." The court cited several precedents to support this interpretation, including the famous case of Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps, which stated that the word "include" is used to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute. The court also examined various articles in Schedule I of the Act that prescribe stamp duty on certain instruments. For instance, Article 1 deals with "acknowledgment of a debt exceeding Rs. 20," which does not create any right or liability but is still chargeable to stamp duty. This led the court to conclude that the definition of "instrument" must be given an extensive meaning and is not restricted only to those documents specifically included in the definition. The court further noted that affidavits filed in Court under Order 19, C.P.C., are for the purpose of proving any particular fact or facts and do not create any right or liability. However, due to the deletion of the exemption in Article 4(b), such affidavits are now liable to stamp duty. Conclusion: The court concluded that affidavits sworn or declared for the immediate purpose of being filed in Court are liable to stamp duty under Article 4 of the Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899) as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Act 26 of 1965. The court acknowledged the potential increase in litigation costs due to this interpretation but emphasized that it is a matter for the legislature to address. In the result, the court directed that the affidavit filed in the case reference is liable to stamp duty under Article 4. Order: The affidavit filed in the case reference is liable to stamp duty under Article 4. Order accordingly.
|
