IMPORTANT POINTS
The document was executed and presented for registration on 09.05.2011. The document has been assigned a number also. The document was impounded by the appellants on untenable grounds. The appellants therefore cannot take a stand that the transaction is not complete. As far as the seller and appellants are concerned, the transaction is complete at the moment Ext.P6 was signed and presented for registration. The fact that the appellants unreasonably impounded the document, therefore, cannot be a reason to burden the petitioner with payment of stamp duty.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

1. Appellants 1 and 2, the District Registrar and Sub-Registrar, who were respondents 1 and 2 in W.P. (C) No. 18759/2012, challenge judgment dated 04.02.2015 therein whereby the learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P10 order and Ext.P11 notice demanding stamp duty.

2. The facts emerging from the pleadings are as follows:-

The respondent herein is the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 18759/2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’ for clarity) and is a Primary Agricultural Bank. The petitioner wanted to install Poly House and Tissue Culture Lab and Nursery. Government sanctioned Rs. 5.60 lakhs as grant towards share capital and subsidy, for that purpose. The Bank decided to construct a godown and shopping complex for procuring agricultural products and marketing the same.

3. For this purpose, the Bank resolved to purchase 16.480 cents of land for Rs. 82,23,520/- from one of its members. Ext.P3 resolution dated 31.12.2010 was passed to that effect. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies granted sanction for purchase as per Ext.P4, on 28.02.2011. Thereupon, an agreement for sale of property was executed on 12.03.2011. Ext.P6 sale deed dated 09.05.2011 was executed and presented for registration on the same day at Sub-Registrar's Office. The Sub-Registrar numbered the sale deed as No. P/8.

4. Ext.P7 is a notification issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of its powers under Section 35 of Travancore Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 and Section 30 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1952. As per Ext.P7 notification dated 08.10.1960, the whole stamp duty and registration fee shall be remitted to Co-operative Societies on instruments executed by or on behalf of any registered Co-operative Society, if the instrument is executed by any officer of such society or member in his own capacity if it related to the business of the Society. In view of the said notification, the stamp duty was not paid by the petitioner.

5. The Sub-Registrar, however, referred Ext.P6 sale deed to the Registrar to determine stamp duty and to clarify whether the document is exempted from payment of stamp duty. The Registrar thereupon issued Ext.P8 notice dated 14.03.2012 stating that the instrument is impounded and requiring explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner gave Ext.P9 reply dated 30.05.2012. The Registrar issued Ext.P10 order dated 08.06.2012 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,83,331/- towards stamp duty and Rs. 25/- as penalty. Consequently, the Sub-Registrar also issued Ext.P11 notice. The petitioner contended that the legal issue was adjudicated in favour of Societies by this Court in Ext.P12 judgment in W.P. (C) No. 19009/2010 filed by the Thrissur District Co-operative Bank and in view of Ext.P12 judgment, Ext.P10 order and Ext.P11 notice are legally unsustainable.

6. The appellants contested the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st appellant, execution of Ext.P6 deed is admitted but the 1st respondent stated that the document was impounded and not registered. The appellants, to refute the claim of the petitioner-Bank, relied on judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 17973/2010 dated 19.11.2011. In the said judgment, it was held that since the business of the Co-operative Bank is Banking business, remission can only be granted to instruments related to its banking business. Appellants stated that Ext.P6 document is also ineligible for stamp duty remission on the same ground.

7. Furthermore, there are at least four orders of the Land Revenue Commissioner- Appellate authority holding that similar documents are not exigible to stamp duty remission. Mere recital in the document that purchase of property is for business purpose, is not sufficient to get remission. The appellants further pointed out that it has not been mentioned in the document that the landed property is purchased for installing Poly House and Tissue Culture Lab and Nursery. The 1st respondent has not found anyth