9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in Chitradurga. The company borrowed from the Industrial Finance Corporation of India a long termloan of ₹ 50,00,000/- and as security for the loan, the immovable properties of the company were mortgaged in favour of I.F.C.I. The deed of mortgage was registered at Delhi on 28-2-1975 since the principal office of the I.F.C.I. is situated at Delhi. It is staled that under Section 30(2) of the Indian Registration Act, it is legally per missible for the Registrar of Delhi District to receive and register any instrument mentioned in Section 17, sub-section (1), clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) and Section .17(2) insofar as the instrument relating to immovable property is concerned, without regard to the situation in any part of India in respect of the property to which the document relates. In compliance with the statutory requirement under Sections 66 and 67 of the Indian Registration Act, only a copy of the instrument as required, was forwarded by the Registrar, Delhi under cover of his letter dated 3-1-1976 to the District Registrar, Chitradurga, where the properly is located. In accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 66 of the Act, the Registrar of Chitradurga Distr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the petitioner learnt that in the order-sheet maintained by the respondent No. 1, a noting had been made that none was present on behalf of the company. It is asserted that the company's representative namely the Chief Engineer was in fact present in Court and he did attend the office of the first respondent on 16-5-1983. Later on, the petitioner was served with another notice dated 18-6-1983 in which it was mentioned that on account of the petitioner's failure to pay a sum of ₹ 2,24,990/- the said amount will be recovered as arrears of land revenue and a copy of this order has been endorsed to the Tahsildar, Chitradurga. The petitioner sought review of this order and filed a Review Petition on 6-7-1983. But the Review Petition was rejected by merely stating that the order sought to be reviewed was in consonance with the Karnataka Stamp Act. These orders of respondent No. 1 demanding payment of alleged defeit stamp duly of ₹ 2,24,990/- is challenged in this writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the company is not liable to pay the amount demanded by respondent No. 1 on the following grounds:- (1) The copy recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty is situalc. (2) The Registrar shall also forward a copy of such document, together with a copy of the map or plan (if any) mentioned in Section 21, to every other Registrar in whose dislriet any part of such properly is siluate. (3) Such Sub-Registrar on receiving any such copy shall file it in his Book No. 1, and shall also send a memorandum of the copy to each of the Sub- Registrars subordinate to him within whose sub-district any parl of the property is situalc. (4) Every Sub-Registrar receiving any memorandum under this section shall file il in his Book No. 1. (7.) According to Section 67 of the Aet:- On any document being registered under Section 30, sub-section (2), a copy of such document and of the endorsements and certificate thereon shall be forwarded to every Registrar within whose district any parl of the property to which the instrument relates is situate, and the Registrar receiving such copy shall follow the procedure prescribed for him in Section 66, sub-section (1). In all these provisions a distinction is made between an instrument and a copy of the instrument. In sub-section (3) of Section 66, the reference is only to a copy of the instrument and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ga nor was the instrument transferred from Delhi to Chitradurga to the concerned authority. What was transferred was onty a copy of the registered mortgage deed which can only be regarded as a copy of the instrument and not the instrument itself. So the question for consideration is, whether the Special Deputy Commissioner had the necessary jurisdiction to take action under subsection (1) of Section 33 as well as under sub-section (2) of Section 33 by calling upon the petitioner to pay the alleged difference in stamp duty in a sum of ₹ 2,24,990/-. I have no hesitation in holding I that the Special Deputy Commissioner has exercised the jurisdiction improperly and has made a demand which is not warranted by law. I can only observe that the demand for payment of Rs..2,24,990/- would have been permissible if the instrument itself was produced before him or had come before him in the performance of his functions, which is not the case in the facts and circumstances. (9.) It is seen from Anncxure-E that power is also exercised by the authority concerned under Section 46-A of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Scetion 46-A(1) of the Act provides:- Section 46-A. Recovery of Slamp Duty n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner for his case affixed stamps of the value of ₹ 1,08,751/- purchased from the Collector of Stamps, Calculla. It was duly registered at Calcutta on April 5,1957. Thereafter, on March 23,1957 by a deed executed between the first petitioner and the Slate of Uttar Pradesh a part of the mortgage property in West Bengal was released and in its place a part of some properties of Uttar Pradesh was substituted. THE deed of substitution was duly stamped and registered in Uttar Pradesh. No objeclion was then taken to the stamp affixed on the original deed of mortgage. In 1960 the first petitioner therein made a request to the State of Uttar Pradesh lo retease a further part of the mortgage properties included in the original morlgagc deed and lo acccpl in their place and stead the assets and properties of the Company's factory at Varanasi as substituted security. A draft deed for the substitution was sent by the first pelilioner lo the Colleclor of Varanasi for ascertaining the stamp duly payable on it and for gelling the benefits of reduced rales of duty applicable in case of substitution of securily. The Collector then referred the matter to the Board of Revenue for adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ok place in Uttar Pradesh. The second dutiable event was the receipt in West Bengal. When it came before the officers of Uttar Pradesh for a decision whether it was duty stamped or not, the officers of Uttar Pradesh were bound to hold that the instrument was not duly stamped as it did not bear Uttar Pradesh stamps. In the circumstances of the case, the fact that the instrument had stamped in accordance with the law of West Bengal could not justify conclusion that it had been duly stamped. The instrument can be said to be duty stamped only if it bears stamps of the amount and description in accordance with the law of the State concerned. The law includes not only the Act but also the rules framed under the Act. The facts and circumstances in which the Supreme Court made the above observations arc in material variance with the facts and circumstances of the instant case. I am of the opinion that the decision relied upon by the learned Government Pleader is inapplicable to the facts of this case. I may also observe that the decision relied upon by the learned Government Pleader relates to an instrument, and not to a copy of the instrument received by the concerned authority and, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
