- (1.) THIS revision has been filed under sec, 56 (i) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an order of the Collector Bhilwara dated 24. 6. 57 imposing a penalty of Rs. 24000/- besides a deficit stamp duty of Rs. 2399/-under sec. 40 (b) of the Act.
(2.) THE case was heard on 9. 8. 1957 and it appeared necessary to issue notice to the Registrar of Companies Rajasthan as well. Shri Jit Ram Sharma has appeared on behalf of the Register. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. Two documents were executed in favour of the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Bhilwara creating a pledge and hypothecation for Rs. 20 lacs each Both these documents were forwarded to the Register of Companies who holding them to have been insufficiently stamped impounded the same under sec. 33 of the Act and forwarded the originals to the Collector Bhilwara of necessary action under sec. 38 (2) of the Act. As regards the hypothecation deed the learned Collector came to the conclusion that the document was exempt from duty under Art. 40 (b) of the Act read with item 47 Group J, of the Separate Revenue Department notification dated 15. 2. 1955 published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated April 23, 1955, regarding reductions and remissions. He, therefore, held this hypothecation deed to be chargeable with no duty. As regards the pledge-deed he held that it was chargeable under art. 62 of the Schedule II of the Rajasthan Stamp Law Adaptation Act 1952 and as such should have been executed on a stamp paper of Rs. 2400/ -. He therefore, ordered that the dificiency of Rs. 2399/ - together with 10 times penalty amounting to Rs. 24000/ - be realised from the applicants. This order has been Challenged before us in this revision. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants has argued that the learned Collector has over-looked the important provision of law on the subject and that a deed of pledge is exempt from stamp duty. This contention has not been controverted by the opposite-party but has been frankly conceded by them. The Rajasthan Stamp Law Adaptation Act, 1952 made the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 applicable to the whole of Rajasthan with certain modifications. Schedule I enumerated the provisions of the Act which were to be exempted to the extent stated in the schedule. The first schedule to the Act was replaced by the second schedule of the Adaptation Act, 1952. In Art. 6 (2) of this schedule the proper stamp duty payable on the pawn or pledge of movable property where such pawn or pledge has been made by way of security for the repayment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan or an existing or future debt is shown. The first portion of this article gives the duty payable as to whether the amount exceeds one figure but does not exceed the other in ascending spiral. The second portion is applicable where the loss is repayable within three months from the date of such instrument There is an exemption given in this item relates to instruments of pawn or pledge of agricultural produce if unattested. It appears that the learned Collector while deciding the case had only this provision of law in his mind and he, therefore, concluded that as the pledge was not confined to agricultural property alone the document was not included within the exemption. The other relevant provisions do not appear to have been brought to his notice. We may refer to the Separate Revenue Department notification dated l5. 2. 1955 published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated April 23, 1955, regarding reductions and remissions. J part of this notification comprising 55 items As argued by the learned counsel for the applicant the result of adaptation was to introduce a material disparity between the Indian Law and the adapted Law of Rajasthan on the point of stamp duty payable on a deed of pledge. According to the Indian Law and deed of pledge whether it related to agricultural or non-agricultural produce was exempt from such duty, whereas adapted law of Rajasthan confined the exemption to agricultural produce only. The commercial concerns brought this to the notice of the Government and as a result thereof a supplement notification was issued on 7. 5. 1957 which was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra part IV-C dated 30th May, 1957. The notification runs as below: - No. F. 2 (29) E and T/56 - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sec. 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (II of 1899) as adapted to Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952, (Rajasthan Act No. VII of 1952), the State Government is pleased to make the following amendment to Separate Revenue Department Notification No. F. 49. 4) (SR) 53, dated the 15th Feb. 1955, of the Pre-Reorganisation Rajasthan State (published in the Rajasthan Gazette Part IV-C dated the 23rd April, 1955), namely, Amendment. After the instrument number 55 under head "j-Other Documents, the following items shall be added, namely: - "56. Unattested documents of pawn or pledge of goods. " The effect of this notification has not been denied by the opposite-party. It has been conceded by them that as a result of this notification documents of pledge whether of agricultural produce or non-agricultural produce were placed within the scope of this exemption. The learned Government Advocate has, however, argued that sec. 9 (a) of the Act authorises the Government to create fresh exemptions with retrospective as well as prospective effect and where no such intention has been expressed the exemption should be deemed to be of a prospective character only. We have given this factor our anxious consideration and we find ourselves unable to subscribe to this view. In the first place the notification referred to above adds item No 56 to the schedule of exemptions published in 1955 and this would suggest that the Government in ended that the freshly added item should always be deemed to be a part of the 1955 schedule. Secondly it is a well established maxim of interpretation that remedial measures operate retrospectively. We may quote the following observations from Cronpus Juris. " "in accordance with the rule generally applicable to legislative enactments, unless required in express terms, or by clear implication an amendatory Act will be construed prospectively and not retrospectively and the parts not altered are considered as having been the law from the time they were enacted. So also where a statute, or a portion thereof, is amended by setting forth the amended section in full, the provisions of the original statute, that are repeated are to be considered as having been the law from the time they were first enacted, and the new provisions or the changed provisions are to be understood as enacted at the time the amended Act takes effect and not to have any retrospective operation. Proceedings instituted orders made and judgments rendered before the passage of the amendment will therefore rot be affected by it but will continue to be governed by the original statute. However, in accordance with the rule applicable to statutes generally, amendments which are purely remedial operate retrospectively, and those which merely cause charges in the adjective or procedural law apply to all cases pending and subsequent to their enactment, whether the cause accrued prior to or subsequent to the time the change became effective unless there is a saving clauses to existing litigation, or accrued causes of Action. But amendments causing changes in the adjective or procedural law will not operate retrospectively so as to affect a proceeding entirely closed before the amendment became effective. A similar view was expressed by their Lordship of the Rajasthan High Court in 291 RLW 1953 wherein it was pointed out that an amendment having in its object the removal of a defect in the original Ordinance was of a remedial nature and was intended to have retrospective effect. 3. For these reasons we hold that the document in question being a document of pledge is exempt from the payment of stamp duty by virtue of the aforesaid notification. It was also argued on behalf of the applicants before us that the Registrar of companies was not discharging the function of his office in impounding this docu-ment of pledge and forwarding the same to the Collector A number of decisions of the various Indian High Courts have been cited before us in this connection. This proposition has been challenged by the opposite party However, in view of the fact that the revision is decided on the ground that the document being a pledge deed is exempt from duty we consider it unnecessary to examine this question any further for it evidently has no practical utility but merely academic one. We, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the Collector, Bhilwara, dated 24. 6. 1957 and direct that the proceeding taken out by the Collector for realisation of deficient stamp duty and penalty from the applicants upon the pledge deed shall stand quashed. .;