Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
4th October, 1955
S.R. DAS, ACTG. C.J.I., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, IMAM AND CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, JJ.
The Member, Board of Revenue, Appellant
Versus
Arthur Paul Benthall Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 159 of 1954.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, (Mr. B. Sen and Mr. P.K. Bose, Advocates, with him), for Appellant: Mr. S. Chaudhury, Senior Advocate, ( Mr. S. N. Mukherjee, Mr. B. N. Ghosh and Mr. A. K. Basu, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
– Section 4 deals with a single transaction completed in several instruments, and Section 6 with a single transaction which might be viewed as falling under more than one category, whereas Section 5 applies only when the instrument comprises more than one transaction, and it is immaterial for the purpose whether those transactions are of the same category or of different categories. As held in the case of the Member, Board of Revenue v. Arthur Paul Benthall, AIR 1956 SC 35 the topics dealt with in the three sections being thus different, no useful purpose will be served by referring to Section 4 or Section 6 for determining the scope of Section 5 or for construing its terms. It is not without significance that the Legislature has used in three different words in relation to three sections, “transaction†in Section 4, “matter†in Section 5 and “description†in Section 6.
– as held in the case of Member Board of Revenue v. Arthur Paul Benthal, AIR 1956 SC 35, a construe “different matters†as something different from “different categories†would not amount to introduce a concept foreign to the scheme of the enactment, as argued in the case.
Â
– are different, but it is not difficult to conceive of instrument which might raise questions falling to be determined under both the sections as held in Member Board of Revenue v. Arthur Paul Benthal, AIR 1956 SC 35.
– if the intention of the Legislature was that the expression “distinct matters†in Section 5 should be understood not its popular sense but narrowly as meaning different categories in the Schedule, nothing would have been easier to say so. When two words of different import are used in a statue in two cause active provisions, it would be difficult to maintain that they are used in the same sense, and the conclusion must follow that the expression “distinct matters†in Section 5 and “description†in section 6 have different connotations, as held in Member Board of Revenue v. Arthur Paul Benthal, AIR 1956 SC 235.
Judgement
VENKATARAMA AYYAR, J.: This appeal raised a question under Section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act 2 of 1899. The respondent was, at the material time the Managing Director of Messrs. Bird and Co. Ltd., and of Messrs. F. W. Heilgers and Co.Ltd., which were acting as Managing Agents of several Companies registered under the Indian Companies Act. He was also a Director of a number of the other Companies, and had on occasions acted as liquidator of some Companies, as executor or administrator of estates of deceased persons and as trustees of various estates.
On 4-7-1949 he applied to the Collector of Calcutta under S. 31 of the Stamp Act for adjudication of duty payable on a power-of attorney, market as Ex. A in the proceedings, which he proposed to execute. By that power, he empowered Messrs. Douglas Chisholm Fairbairn and John James Brims Sutherland jointly and Several to act for him in his individual capacity and also as executor, administrator, trustee, managing agent, liquidator and all other capacities.
The Collector referred the matter under S. 56(2) of the Act to the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, who eventually referred it under S. 57 to the High Court of Calcutta stating his own opinion that the stamp duty was payable on the power for as may respective capacities as the principal executes the power". The reference was heard by a Bench consisting of the Chief Justice, Das J. and S. R. Das Gupta J., who differed in their opinion.
The learned Chief Justice which whom Das. J agreed, held that the different capacities of the executant did not constitute distinct matters for purposes of S. 5 of the Act and that the proper duty payable on the instrument was Rs.10 under Art. 48(d) of Sch. 1-A, Stamp Act as amended by S. 13 of Bengal Act 3 of 1922.
S. R. Das Gupta J. was of the opinion that the different capacities of the executant were distinct matters for the purposes of S. 5 and that the instrument was chargeable with the aggregate amount of duty payable if separate instruments were executed in respect of each of those capacities.
In the result, the question was answered in accordance with the opinion of the majority in favour of the respondent. Against that decision, the Board of Revenue, West Bengal has preferred this appeal by special leave, and contends that the instrument in question comprises distinct matters and must be stamped in accordance with S. 5
2. The statutory provisions bearing on the question are Ss 3 to 60 of the Act. Section 3 is the charging Section, and it enacts that subject to certain exemptions, every instrument mentioned in the Schedule to the Act shall be chargeable with the duty of the amount indicated therein as the proper duty therefor.
Section 4 lays down that when in the case of any sale, mortgage or settlement several instruments are employed for completing the transaction, only one of the them called the principal instrument is chargeable with the duty mentioned in Sch.I, and that the other instruments are chargeable each with a duty of one rupee.
Section 5 enacts that any instrument comprising or relating to several distinct matter shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the duties with which separate instruments, each comprising or relating to one of such matters, would be chargeable under the Act. Section 6, so far as is material, runs as follows:
"Subject to the provisions of the last preceding Section, an instrument so formed as to come within two or more of the descriptions in Sch. I, shall, where the duties chargeable thereunder and different, be chargeable only with the highest of such duties."
3. The point for decision in this appeal is as to the meaning to be given to the words distinct matters" in S. 5. The contention of 38 the respondent which found favour with the majority of the learned Judges in the court below is that the word " matters" in Section 5 is synonymus with the word "description" occurring in S. 6, and that they both refer to the several categ
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
