Decided on May 17,1960

RANIDAN Appellant


- (1.)THIS revision has been filed under sec. 56 of the Indian Stamp Act against an order of the Collector, Jodhpur dated 23rd September, 1959, whereby the applicant was required to pay a deficit of Rs. 15/- and a penalty of Rs. 150/-
(2.)WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The learned Collector has not referred to any provision of law under which the action taken by him would fall. The facts of the case as stated by the learned Collector himself are that the Inspector of Registration and Stamps during the course of the inspection of the office of the Sub-Registrar pointed out that the sale deed executed by one Lakhmichand for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- in favour of the applicant Ranidan was deficient in stamp duty by Rs. 15/ -. The Sub-Registrar thereupon submitted the papers to the Collector, who sent for the applicant vendee - the word grantee has obviously been used wrongly instead of vendee - and ordered him to pay a penalty of Rs. 150/- and a deficit of Rs. 15/ -. Hence this revision.
The learned Collector obviously ignored the provisions of law in passing the order which forms the subject matter of this revision. The power to demand proper duty and penalty is conferred upon the Collector by sec. 40 sub-sec. (1) clause (b) of the Indian Stamp Act. This section is applicable when the Collector impounds any instrument under secs. 33 or receives any instrument sent to him under sec. 38 sub-sec. (2) of the Act. In the present case the original document had been taken away after registration and what the Inspector saw was the copy of the document in the Register of the Registrar. The original document never came to be impounded therefore sec. 40 had no application. This question was examined by their Lordships of the Rajasthan High Court ` in Seth Hanuman Pershad vs. The State of Rajasthan (Indian Law Reports Rajasthan Series 1958 Vol. VIII page 345 ). It was held by their Lordships under similar circumstances that the Collector had no jurisdiction to make a demand of any deficit duty and penalty. The learned Government Advocate has frankly conceded his inability to support the decision of the lower court. We, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the lower court and direct that no deficit duty or penalty shall be realised in the present case from the applicant. .


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.