HARIDAS Vs. SUB COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext. P1 order passed by the Sub Collector, Ottapalam directing him to pay stamp duty on three documents within 15 days of receipt of Ext. P1.

(2.) The petitioner executed three documents conveying his rights in favour of three persons. There were doubts regarding the proper stamp duty payable. He therefore applied to the Sub Collector, Ottapalam, the first respondent herein, under S.31 of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (Act 17 of 1959) hereinafter referred to as the Act, inviting a decision by the concerned authority about the stamp duty that has to be levied. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is stated that the decision of the concerned authority was invited, the document was properly drawn up and executed and the document makes mention of passing of consideration. Thus, there is a proper adjudication under S.33 and hence Ext. P1 is not open to challenge.

(3.) There is some misapprehension on the part of the authorities in this case. S.31 of the Act deals with adjudication as to the proper stamp. S.32 deals with certificate by Collector and S 33 deals with examination and impounding of instruments. The petitioner's counsel would contend that stamp duty can be levied and action taken only when the instrument executed is either presented before the Registrar for registration or produced before a court of law as a piece of evidence. If a person executes a document and keeps quiet, without resorting to the two procedures mentioned above, he cannot be charged with stamp duty for the instrument so executed by him.