PRISM CEMENT LIMITED Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER calls in question the correctness of order dated 5.3.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue; whereby the order dated 13.1.2010 by Collector of Stamps, has been affirmed.

(2.) BY order dated 13.1.2010, Collector of Stamps after impounding the document termed as "Ikrarnama dated 10.1.2007 (Annexure P/2) and in a proceeding drawn under Section 40 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 formed an opinion that the Ikrarnama being a Bond under Section 2 (5) of the Act of 1899 and not duly stamped required the petitioner to makeup the proper stamp duty by paying Rs.2,80,7000/- and Rs.300 penalty, i.e., total Rs.2,81,000/-.

(3.) WHETHER such an instrument is lawful or not is not the question. The issue is, whether the instrument can be construed as "Bond" under the Stamp Act or an agreement as the petitioner alleges.