9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (12) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrying on business in various commodities. They were also doing business as commission agents selling the goods on behalf of their principals. The petitioners as commission agents paid sales tax on the transactions effected by them on behalf of their principals as required under section 11 of the Act. With regard to the transactions on which tax was paid by the commission agents, the principals would not be liable further to pay tax with regard to the same transactions once again and can claim exemption. For the purpose of claiming exemption under rule 17-A(c) of the Rules under the Act, the principals were required to file "pattis" (statement of accounts) issued by the commission agents certifying that they have paid the tax on the transactions effected by them for and on behalf of the principals. Rule 17-A(c) reads as follows: "The 'patti' (statement of accounts) rendered by an agent to his principal shall contain the following certificates, namely- 'Certified that the tax due on purchases/sales effected on your behalf has been/will be paid by me/us'." The petitioners 2 to 27 who were involved in such transactions as commission agents and paid tax on those transactions as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioners on behalf of their principals were given as affidavits. A perusal of the documents would show that the information was given adopting the form of an affidavit, namely, the information given was solemnly affirmed and it was duly attested by persons authorised by law to attest affidavits. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as per the rules under the A.P.G.S.T. Act, what is required to be filed by the principals to claim exemption is only statements of accounts generally called "pattis" from their agents with a certificate that the tax due on the transactions effected by the agents on behalf of the principals has been paid by them and the rules do not require the filing of any affidavits by the agents and, therefore, though the "pattis" have been given by the petitioners in the form of affidavits they cannot be treated as affidavits for the purpose of levying the stamp duty. It is true that a perusal of the relevant rules would show that they do not require the filing of "pattis" in the form of affidavits. What is required is only a certificate from the agents mentioning that the sales tax due on the transactions has been paid by them. But that is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the purpose of collecting the stamp duty and penalty. Section 33 of the Stamp Act provides that all instruments not duly stamped shall be impounded by every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and by every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police. Proviso (a) to section 35 of the Stamp Act says that when the stamp duty and penalty have been paid in respect of a document not duly stamped it shall be "admitted in evidence". Therefore, when an insufficiently stamped instrument is filed before an officer he is either to admit the document in evidence on payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty or when no such payment is made he is to impound it as provided under section 33 of the Act. When the deficit stamp duty and penalty are paid the officer admitting the instrument certifies as provided under section 42(1) and sends an authorised copy of such document to the Collector as provided under section 38(1) together with a certificate in writing stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof. But if the stamp duty and penalty are not paid the officer refuses to admit the instrument and sends the original to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J.) a similar view was taken. There is ample authority for this view we have taken in the decided cases of other High Courts. In Panakala Rao v. KumaraswamiA.I.R. 1937 Mad. 763., it was held that when an instrument has been admitted in evidence and judgment delivered, the court becomes functus officio and it is not thereafter open to the court to reopen the matter and impound the document. The same thing also was pointed out in the Full Bench decision, Reference under the Stamp Act, Section 46(2)[1885] I.L.R. 8 Mad. 564. In that case also the levy of deficit stamp duty and penalty was sought to be made by the same court after the judgment was pronounced. While dealing with that matter, the Full Bench observed thus: "He had admitted the documents in evidence and proceeded to judgment on the 18th September and he was functus officio. When an instrument has been admitted in evidence and judgment delivered its admission can only be called in question in a proceeding under section 50 (same as the present section 61 of the Stamp Act). We accordingly quash the order of the 26th September." The same view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in Khetra Mohan Saha v. Jamini Kanta DewanA. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is over and he, therefore, becomes functus officio having no power under section 33 to impound the instrument. In the Full Bench decision, Collector, Ahmednagar v. Rambhau A.I.R. 1930 Bom. 392. of the Bombay High Court, a sale certificate granted to the purchaser by the court had only a four-anna stamp though it should have borne a stamp of eight annas. A copy of the certificate was sent to the Sub-Registrar who informed the Judge that it was insufficiently stamped. The judge got the certificate back from the purchaser and thinking that he had power to accept the document and to impose a penalty, asked for the opinion of the High Court. In that connection, the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court held that when the certificate was presented to the judge for the second time, he was functus officio. He could not impound it under section 33(1) of the Stamp Act nor had he any legal authority in the exercise of his own inherent powers to recover the requisite stamp of additional value. Therefore, it is clear that when the documents were produced before the Commercial Tax Officer, who without himself collecting the deficit stamp duty and penalty or without impounding the documents and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
