LAWS(MPH)-2012-7-26

TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF STAMPS

Decided On July 05, 2012
TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED Appellant
V/S
COLLECTOR OF STAMPS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGARD being had to the similar controversy involved in these cases, they have been heard analogously together with the consent of the parties and a common order is being passed in the matter. Facts of WP No. 717/2011 (O) are being dealt with as under:-

(2.) PETITIONER before this court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 07-09-2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, by which the revision petition u/s 56(4) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 has been dismissed. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 30-11-2009 passed by the Collector of Stamps, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Indore, wherein the Collector has levied a stamp duty applicable in respect of the instrument in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

(3.) REPLY has been filed in the matter and the respondent State has justified the action of the Collector as well as the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 07-09-2010. Learned Government Advocate appearing in the matter has drawn the attention of this court towards section 2(12) of the the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 and his contention is that if an instrument is liable to duty when executed, it is chargeable as soon as it is signed by the executant. He has categorically stated that all the agreements in question/mortgage deeds were signed by the executant in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this court towards Section 3(bb) and Section 19(a) of the Indian Stamps Act and his contention is that the order passed by the Collector as well as by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority does not warrant any interference. It has also been stated that in large number of cases involving same agreement the payment of deficit stamp duty as directed by the Collector has already been done and as many as seven cases have been referred in the reply wherein certain Companies and Owners of the Vehicle have deposited the deficit stamp duty. Respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.