DILWATI DEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceeding under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act was initiated against the petitioner. Mr. A. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that unless the document is produced as an evidence before the officer, no proceeding under Section 33 could be initiated and as such the proceeding is invalid. He secondly contends that there was a general circular by the Collector under which if the land is below 16 decimal it could not be valued as an urban land. Admittedly, the land is an agricultural land as would be apparent from the Tahsildar's report. Therefore, it cannot be valued on the said basis. He also contended that the document was registered and that no proceeding under Section 47-A could be initiated once the document is registered. Such proceeding can be initiated only before the registration is done. Therefore, in no manner this proceeding can be proceeded with validly.

(2.) The submission of Mr. A. B. Singh does not appear to be sound so far as the Sections 33 and 47-A are concerned. Inasmuch as Section 33 does not require that the document is to be produced in evidence. A plain reading of Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act shows that every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or every person in charge of a public office, except a Police Officer, before whom any instrument, chargeable with duty is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, he may impound the same it appears to him the such instrument is not duly stamped which in his opinion is required to be stamped. Thus it is not clear that the document is not required to be produced in evidence but it is necessary who is capable of receiving the document in evidence or a person in charge of a public office before whom a document comes in discharge of his function of such office, he has the authority to impound such document.

(3.) Apart from sub-section (1) as referred to above, sub-section (4) of Section 33 as amended in U.P. prescribes that even if a copy of such document is produced before the Collector or such officer who might be held to hold public office by Government notification may also take steps for determination of the stamp payable. But by reason of proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 33 as amended in UP, such proceeding cannot be initiated after four years from date of execution of the instrument which necessarily implies that such a proceeding can be initiated even after registration and by reason of sub-section (5) of Section 33 as amended in UP, the deficit stamp duty is to be realised with penalty on the copy of the instrument if the document is not produced. Therefore, a person holding public office has every right to refer the matter for recovery of stamp duty and therefore, the proceeding cannot be held to be void. In this case, it is pointed out in the order itself that the proceeding was under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act.