B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

The matter was heard yesterday in part and came to be adjourned to today. Today, Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rode, learned AGP for the respondents have completed their arguments.

2. The short submission of Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel is, demand of stamp duty on Statements and Receipts as per Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (Bombay Act LX of 1958), is unsupported by any legal provision. He has taken us through relevant sections of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 1958 Act). This Act is now known as the Maharashtra Stamp Act.

3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has in defence relied upon the submissions filed at the time of opposing admission of Writ Petition and affidavit in reply filed on 01.02.2016. He has also taken us through the same legal provisions.

4. The petitioners before this Court are an association of moneylenders in Vidarbha and its members. Their grievance is in relation to demand of stamp duty on a receipt issued by them in Form No. 9, after borrower discharges his liability and a statement in Form No. 8 showing details of conditions of loan. The effort is to demonstrate that no stamp duty can be levied on these documents.

5. The enactment with which this Court is concerned is the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946, and the Rules, 1959 framed thereunder. It is not in dispute that from 16.01.2014, the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, came into force with 2014 Rules thereunder.

6. A perusal of Form No. 9 of Bombay Money Lenders Rules, 1959, reveals that it prescribes proforma in which moneylender has to issue receipt to borrower as mandated in Rule 16. The receipt is of the amount paid by the debtor to the moneylender.

7. Section 2(l) of 1958 Act defines 'instrument'. Substantive part of definition shows that it is an inclusive definition which encompasses within itself every document creating any right or liability or its transfer, reduction, extension or extinguishment. Later part of definition excludes from it bills of exchange, cheque, promissory notes etc. In the later part, “receipt” is expressly mentioned. Thus, a 'receipt' cannot be viewed as an 'instrument' for the purposes of 1958 Act.

8. Chapter II of 1958 Act deals with stamp duties and Section 3 speaks of instrument chargeable with duty. As receipt is not an instrument, it is apparent that no stamp duty can be demanded in relation thereto.

9. A perusal of Form No. 8 of Bombay Moneylenders Rules, 1959, shows that it contains a proforma in which moneylender has to submit certain information to his debtor. This obligation is cast by Section 18(2)(a) of Money Lenders Act, 1946, upon moneylender. Form No. 8 contains details like amount of loan, date of loan, date of maturity thereof, rate of interest, nature of security, particulars of documents and any special condition on which loan has been given. Other connected relevant information is also required to be mentioned therein. Thus, this is only a communication by moneylender to his debtor in discharge of statutory obligation. The communication is essentially about liability already incurred by the debtor and hence noted somewhere else. It is, therefore, an extract of information contained in the original document and flowing therefrom. This statement by itself does not result in creation or acceptance of any liability. The statement also, therefore, does not qualify to be an instrument as defined in Section 2(l) of 1958 Act.

10. The learned AGP, however, has invited our attention to Section 30(a) against entry “No. 6 (Agreement relating to Deposit of Titledeeds, Pawn or Pledge)”. Here, we are not required to deal with any such agreement and, therefore, reliance upon such provision is misconceived. Our attention is also drawn to Schedule I, Article 6(2). Article 6 is about agreement relating to deposit of title deeds, pawn, pledge, or hypothecation and clause (2) is about very same document. We are also not cal