Mathur, J. - (1.) THE material ques tion is whether an affidavit, where the de ponent swears and not affirms, re quires a stamp duty of Re. I/-/- as prescribed in Article 4 .of Schedule I-B of the Stamp Act, as amended by the U. P. Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1969 (U. P. Act No. XI of 1969). Amended Article 4 runs as below:- "Affidavit, including an affirmation or declaration in the case of persons by law allowed to affirm or declare instead of swearing- (a) for the immediate purpose of being filed or used in any Court or before an officer of any Court .......... One Rupee; (b) in any other case ........ Four Rupees and fifty paise. Exemptions - Affidavit or declaration in writing when made- (a) as a condition of enrolment under the Army Act, 1950, the Air Force Act, 1950 or the Navy Act, 1957, or (b) for the sole purpose of enabling any person to receive any pension or cha ritable allowance."; It shall be found that prior to the amend ment affidavits made for the immediate pur pose of being filed or used in any Court or before an officer of any Court were exempt ed from duty; but as a result of the amend ment, such affidavits are chargeable with stamp duty, though the rate prescribed is lower than for other affidavits.
(2.) IT is contended before us that the U. P. Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1969, in so far as Article 4 of Schedule I-B is concerned, is beyond the competence of the State Legislature and hence is invalid; and secondly, that Article 4 cannot apply to affidavits where the deponent has sworn the contents thereof. The material provisions of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution are Items 91 and 97 of List I Union List; Item 63 of List II State List; and Item 44 of List III Concurrent List. Item 91 of List I and 63 of List II speak of "rates of stamp duty." Consequently the State Legis lature has the power to amend the rates of stamp duty in respect of documents other than those specified in Items 91 of List I. Naturally, under Item 63 the State Legislature can. merely vary the rates of stamp duty on documents which under the Cen tral law are chargeable with stamp duty, and it cannot impose stamp duty on a docu ment not covered by the Central law.
(3.) ITEM 44 of List III runs as below:- "Stamp duties other than duties or fees collected by means of judicial stamps, but not including rates of stamp duty." This Item clearly excludes "rates of stamp duty", that is, matters falling under Item 91 of List I and 63 of List II. The expression "stamp duties" is a general one and shall empower the State Legislature to amend or modify, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Stamp Act so as to make other documents also chargeable with stamp duty. Item 44, however, excludes such matters where the duty or fee is to be collected by means of judicial stamps. Judicial stamps are often called court-fee stamps. The exception is in respect of duties or fees collected by means of judical stamps only, and not of documents on which such duty or fee by means of judicial stamps is payable. The State Legislature, therefore, has the power to impose stamp duty on a document in addition to court-fee. However, such a law shall not prevail in the State unless reserved for the consi deration of the President and has received his assent (vide Article 254 (2) of the Con stitution). The U. P. Taxation Laws Amend ment Act, 1969, received the assent of the President on September 28, 1969 and under Notification No. AST-4034/X-556(1)-69 dated September 30, 1969 came into force on October 1, 1969. The Amendment Act is thus a valid piece of legislation and it be came operative from the above date. ;