INDERSINGH AHUJA Vs. BALDEO SINGH BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for review of the order passed in Civil revision No. 647/83 dated 19-8-1985 upholding the order of the trial Court that suit promissory note is inadmissible in evidence as additional stamp duty of 10 paise has not been affixed as per section 3-A of the M. P. Karadhan Vidhi (Sanshodhan)Adhiniyam (Act No. 9 of 1972 ).

(2.) THE applicant/plaintiff filed a suit against the non-applicant/defendant for recovery of Rs. 5,000/- on the basis of a promissory note executed by the non-applicant on 13-8-1979. On the date of evidence, the non-applicant raised an objection that the promissory note is inadmissible in evidence as it is insufficiently stamped as additional stamp of 10 paise has not been affixed as required under section 3-A of the said Act. The objection was upheld by the trial court relying on a decision of this court in M/s. Dulichand Mangilal and others vs. Udainarayan, Civil Revision No. 423/80 decided on 22-6-1981 holding that the suit promissory note was inadmissible in evidence as additional stamp duty of 10 paise was not affixed as required under section 3-A. It appears that another Single Bench of this Court in Sitaram vs. Mathuralal 1985 MPLJ 329 = 1984 JLJ 239 has taken a contrary view and held that no additional stamp duty of 10 paise is required on the suit promissory note as the State act is not applicable to promissory note. In the subsequent decision, the earlier decision of this Court was not brought to the notice of the court. But, we are of the view that the later decision lays down the correct law and that no additional stamp duty was required to be affixed on the suit promissory note and it has been wrongly rejected as inadmissible in evidence.

(3.) SECTION 3-A of the Indian Stamp Act was introduced by the Indian Stamp and excise Duty (Amendment Act, 1971 ). Sub-section (1) of Section 3-A states that every instrument chargeable with duty under section 3 read with Articles Nos. 13,14,27,37, 47,49, 52, 53 or 62 (a) of Schedule I shall in addition to such duty, be chargeable with a duty of ten paise. In sub-section (2) of section 3-A it was made clear that the additional duty will be in the form of adhesive stamps bearing the inscription 'refugee relief. This section 3-A was omitted by the Refugee Relief Taxes (Abolition) Act, 1973 (No. 13 of 1973), which came into force on 1-4-1973. Since in this case, the suit promissory note was executed on 13-8-1979, after the deletion of Section 3-A in 1973, no additional stamp duty was payable as required under the repealed provision of the Stamp Act. However, under the M. P. Karadhan Vidhi (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1972, section 3-A was introduced onl5-ll-1971tobe applicable in the State of M. P. Under this added section every instrument chargeable with duty under section 3, read with Schedule I-A shall in addition to such duty be chargeable with a duty of 10 paise. In sub-section (2)the additional duty was to be payable in the form of adhesive stamp bearing the words refugee relief. This sub-section was in force when the present suit promissory note was executed. Now question remains whether any additional stamp duty was payable under this provision on this promissory note. Under the repealed section 3-A in the stamp Act, the additional stamp duty was payable on every instrument chargeble with duty under section 3 read with Articles Nos. 13, 14, 27, 37, 47, 49, 52, 53 and 62 (a) of schedule I. Article 49 is regarding promissory note. Under entry No. 91 of List I of schedule VII of the Constitution, the rates of stamp duty on promissory note is a central subject. Therefore, by introducing section 3-A in the Central Act, Parliament levied additional stamp duty on promissory note. But this provision was deleted subsequently in 1973. Suit promissory note was executed in 1979 when this provision was not in force and, therefore, no additional stamp duty was payable under the repealed provision. Under entry No. 63 of list II, rates of stamp duty in respect of documents other than those specified in List I, is a concurrent subject. Therefore, state can levy stamp duty in respect of documents other than those mentioned in List i. Section 3-A which was introduced in the State Act, clearly mentions that the additional duty will be payable in respect of instruments mentioned in Schedule IA, which does not include Article 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, dealing with promissory note. So, this section 3-A of the State Act was not applicable to the promissory note and other instruments covered under List I. As such, no additional stamp duty was payable to the suit promissory note under the amended section 3-A of the State Act.