SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(All) 841

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Binod Kumar Roy, Yatindra Singh
BHATT INDUSTRIES - Appellant
Versus
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 23889 Of 1988
Decided On : 05/27/1999

Advocates Appeared:
Namrata Singh

The limit of Rs. 5,000/- applies to the entire item No. 11 of the subsequent notification, including the instruments mentioned in the first category, which includes the contract in question.

Headnote:

STAMP DUTY - IMPOSITION - NOTIFICATION - POWER TO ISSUE - SCOPE - EXEMPTION - PROVISO TO SECTION 3 (BB) OF THE ACT - APPLICABILITY - LIMIT OF RS. 5,000/- - APPLICABILITY TO INSTRUMENTS MENTIONED IN THE FIRST CATEGORY.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner purchased resin from the forest department on the basis of quota allotment or auction sale. They entered into a contract with the forest department. Earlier, stamp duty was payable on the same but was exempted under the earlier notification. The subsequent notification dated 14.01.1982 amended the earlier notification and imposed stamp duty on certain instruments, including the contract in question. Petitioner challenged the subsequent notification and sought a direction to the respondents not to charge or demand any stamp duty in respect of the contract of Resin for auction sale or by way of allotment on quota basis.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the subsequent notification was issued under Section 9 of the Act, which is not the charging section. However, the State Government could issue the subsequent notification as the power to issue a notification includes the power to add, amend, vary, or rescind. The court further held that the stamp duty is payable by the grantee, which in this case is the petitioner, as per the terms of the contract and Section 29 of the Act. The proviso to Section 3 (bb) of the Act, which exempts the State Government from liability to pay the duty, is not applicable in this case as the Government is not liable to pay the stamp duty. The court also held that the limit of Rs. 5,000/- applies to the entire item No. 11 of the subsequent notification, including the instruments mentioned in the first category, which includes the contract in question.

Issues: 1. Whether the subsequent notification dated 14.01.1982 imposes fresh duty? 2. Whether the stamp duty is no longer exempted? 3. Whether the limit of Rs. 5,000/- applies to the instruments mentioned in the first category of item No. 11 of the subsequent notification?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to issue a notification under Section 9 of the Act includes the power to add, amend, vary, or rescind. 2. The stamp duty is payable by the grantee, as per the terms of the contract and Section 29 of the Act. 3. The proviso to Section 3 (bb) of the Act, which exempts the State Government from liability to pay the duty, is not applicable in this case as the Government is not liable to pay the stamp duty. 4. The limit of Rs. 5,000/- applies to the entire item No. 11 of the subsequent notification, including the instruments mentioned in the first category, which includes the contract in question.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with costs.

YATINDRA SINGH, J.


( 1 ) THESE four writ petitions are for restraining the respondents from charging or demanding stamp duty on instruments for auction sale of resin or by way of allotment on quota basis; and for quashing of general letter dt. 30. 4. 83 requiring deposit of stamp duty: These petitions have similar facts and raise common questions of law and as such are being decided together. For the sake of convenience, the WP Number 23889/88; m/s. Bhatt Industries v. Divisional Forest officer is taken to be leading case and the reference to the facts annexures will be in respect of this case. Facts :

( 2 ) PETITIONER purchase resin from the forest department on the basis of quota allotment or auction sale. They enter into contract with the forest department1. The stamp duty was payable on the same but was exempted under 41, 48, 55 and 56 to remit the duties so chargeable in respect of instruments of other classes hereinafter described. C.-Forest Department 11. Instalments in the nature of a conveyance on behalf of the state of standing trees or any other forest produce in a Government forest; and also the following instruments : (I) Contract for collection of minor produce barks, etc. (ii) Contract for selling and removing trees; (Hi) Contract for the purchase of timber or firewood to be felled or cut departmentally; (iv) Contract of the usufruct of trees and topes; (v) Contract for the felling or cutting and purchase of timber or firewood; and (vi) Agreement for felling and conversion of timber;.

( 3 ) THE relevant part of the notification is as follows no. SR 102/x-500 (98)/80 dated: Lucknow : January 14, 1982. In exercise of the powers under clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section (9) of the Indian STAMP ACT, 1899, 1899 (Act No. 11 of 1899) the Governor is pleased to make the following amendments in the Government notification no. M-599a-501, dated March, 25, 1942 which shall come into force with effect from January 20, 1982.- Amendments in the aforesaid Notification in the headingc-Forest department;- (a) For the existing item 11, the following item 11 shall be substituted :"11 Instalments In the nature of a conveyance on behalf of the state of standing trees or any other forest produce in a Government forest; and also the following instruments where the amount or value specified therein does not exceed five thousand rupees : (i) Contract for collection of minor produce, barks, etc. (ii) Contract for selling and removing trees; (iii) Contract for the purchase of timber or firewood to be felled or cut departmentally: (iv) Contract of the usufruct of trees and topes, (v) Contract for the felling or cutting and purchase of timber or firewood; and (vi) Agreement for felling and conversion of timber; (b) Items 23 and 25 shall be deleted. By order sd/- R. Venkstanarayanan sansthagat Vitt Sachi v. amended by another notification dt. 14. 1. 82 (the subsequent Notification for short ). A letter dated 30. 04. 19834, addressed to the personnel of Public Works Department and Forest department, was sent by Deputy Commissioner, stamp, Bareilly. It says that in view of the Notification dated 14. 01,1982 certain instruments, like present one, which \vere earlier exempted now require stamps and accordingly the stamp duty may be charged. Petitioner challenges this letter. He prays that direction be issued to the respondents not to charge or demand any stamp duty in respect of contract of Resin for auction sale or by way of allotment on quota basis, points for Determination. 3. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Following points arise for determination. (i) The subsequent notification was issued under Section 9 of the Act. This section is not the charging section. Whether the stamp duty can be imposed by a notification issued under that section? (ii) Whether the duty on the contract is payable by the State. Can any duty be charged in view of proviso to Section 3 (bb) of the Act? (iii) Whether the limit of five thousand rupees qualif










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top