MRS. T. MEENAKSHI Vs. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT COMMERCIAL TAXES AND RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, FORT ST. GEORGE, MADRAS AND THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (STAMP) COLLECTORATE, COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent culminating in the passing of the impugned order of the second respondent in Lr.No.30/C/97 (3) dated 30.4.1997 pertaining to document No.216/94 of S.R.O., Ganapathi (Kulathur) and quash the same and also strike down Section 19 -B of the Stamp Act as ultravires, has filed the above writ petition.

(2.) TRACING the history of the case as pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would state that he purchased a house property situate within Coimbatore Corporation as well as a 'Pujai' situate at Kulathur village of Thiruvananthapuram District of Kerala and as the sale deed was executed by the vendor in Kerala State and in view of Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908, the said sale deed was presented for registration at the office of the Sub Registrar, Kulathur and stamp duty amounting to Rs.39,020/ - beside the Registration Fee was paid in respect of the document and the sale deed was registered as Document No.216 of 1994.

(3.) QUOTING the above amended Section 19 -B of the Stamp Act, the petitioner would further submit that the same has been made without any regard to the limitation imposed by the Constitution as well as the scheme of the Stamp Act and without regard to the distinction between tax and duty; that entry in item No.63 in the State list clearly contemplates that the stamp duty is leviable on the document or instrument executed; that to treat, a copy of document as a document and levying stamp duty is beyond the jurisdiction of the State Legislature and therefore illegal and not enforceable; that further section 3 of the Stamp Act clearly says that the instrument on its execution becomes liable for stamp duty; that Section 19 of the Stamp Act makes the instrument liable for additional stamp duty and Section 19 -A of the Stamp Act contemplates levy of additional stamp duty only on the instrument; that however, Section 19 -B of the Act permits levy of stamp duty not on the instrument but on its copy known as District copy sent by the Registering Officers under the provision of the Registration Act, 1908; that it is significant that this new provision contains no non -abstant clause; that Section 19 -B is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex court holding that copies of documents are not liable to stamp duty; that the second respondent, who had set in motion, the process of determination of market value at the instance of the Registering Officer while issuing impugned notice has not followed the procedure laid down under Section 47 -A of the Stamp Act read with the rules framed there under. On such grounds, the petitioner would pray for the relief extracted supra.