Y. BHASKAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS batch of writ petitions is filed questioning the constitutional validity of amendment to Section 73 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 vide Andhra Pradesh act 17 of 1986, which empowers the person authorised by the Collector not only to enter upon any premises and inspect registers, books, papers, documents, etc. , in relation to any duty, but also to seize and impound them under proper acknowledgment, and challenging the orders passed by virtue of such power.

( 2 ) WE will take up the facts stated in Writ Petition No. 10300 of 1989 for the present purpose. The petitioner-Bank states that the respondents inspected its branches at Abid Road and Chataparru in pursuance of powers vested in them under Sec. 73 of the (Indian Stamp Act as amended by) A. P. Act 17 of 1986. After inspecting certain documents, they found an amount of rs. 3,84,250/- and Rs. 86,300/- as deficit stamp duty to be paid on those documents and instructed the said branches to collect the same. The contentions of the petitioners are: The authorities can inspect the documents, but the power to seize and to determine and collect deficit stamp duty as provided in amended Sec. 73 of the Act by the State is ultra vires the Indian stamp Act, 1899. The authorities cannot classify and determine the nature of documents without notice to the persons affected by such actions. The amendment to Sec. 73 runs contrary to the procedure prescribed for examining and impounding the documents as provided in Sections 31 and 33 of the Act and that impounding of documents under amended Sec. 73 is ultra vires the provisions of the Act. Unilateral imposition of levy of duty amounts to arbitrary action. Thus, amendment of State to Sec. 73 is illegal, arbitrary, excessive and ultra vires the provisions of the Central Act. Amendment to sec. 73 confers unguided and unbriddled power on the authorities and is therefore to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

( 3 ) COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS are filed by respondents denying the allegations. It is stated that before getting the documents validated, the aggrieved person is at liberty to represent his case before the proceedings of seizure are initiated. Sec. 33 deals with impounding of documents and Sec. 73 deals with inspection of records and determination of deficit stamp duty and thus both are not parallel. Amendment to Sec. 73 is legal and constitutionally valid and the writ petitions have no merits.

( 4 ) IN some of the writ petitions, the orders directing the petitioners to pay deficit stamp duty on inspection, seizure and impounding of documents according to Sec. 73 of (as amended by) the A. P. Act 17 of 1986 are challenged: "whether the amendment incorporated vide Andhra Pradesh Act 17 of 1986 in Sec. 73 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which empowers the person authorised by the Collector to seize and impound the instruments, is ultra vires the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. "

( 5 ) TO appreciate the above question, it is relevant to look at some relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short the Central Act ) is a Central enactment to consolidate and amend the law relating to stamps and its object is to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments. Sec. 2 of the Central Act deals with definitions. Section 2 (9) defines collector as: " collector means, (a) within the limits of the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, the collector of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay respectively and without those limits the Collector of a District; and (b) includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer whom the State government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in the behalf;" section 2 (11) defines duly stamped as under: "duly stamped as applied to an instrument, means that the instrument bears an adhesive or impressed stamp of not less than the proper amount and that such st

Click Here to Read the rest of this document