DYAVAMMA ALIAS SANNA MUKKAMMA Vs. BALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court below has misinterpreted the scope of Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity). It is contended that the Court could impose penalty only when an insufficiently stamped document is impounded by the Court for being insufficiently stamped. As the requisite stamp duty was paid before the document was filed into Court - even according to the Court below the question of impounding the document did not arise. In which event the imposition of penalty on the ground the belated payment of deficit stamp duty on documents only when they are sought to be acted upon, would lead to a loss of revenue to the State, is an extraneous consideration on which the penalty is imposed in the absence of any statutory provision in that regard. It is contended that the same is a gloss placed on the Act by the Court below.