RAM SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR BANS WARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Sec. 56 of the Stamp Act against the order of Collector, Banswara dated 18-12-66 imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,744 & Rs. 468/- as deficiency in stamp duty. The facts of the case in brief are in respect of a sale deed registered on 26- 8-63. The sub-Registrar made a reference to the Collector on 22 7 66 under sec. 66 of the Stamp Act about which it was found that on consideration of Rs. 30,951 as against stamp duty of Rs. 1434 Rs. 966 only were paid. The vendee's explanation before the Collector. Banswara was that it was by mistake that full amount of stamp duty was not paid as they were ignorant of the law and that they were prepared to pay the deficient amount. The learned Collector, did not accept the plea and imposed a penalty equal to eight times of the amount of deficiency and ordered that the deficit amount of Rs. 468 and penalty of Rs. 3744 be recovered from the vendees severally or jointly and after the recovery the impounded document be released with a proper certificate. It is against this order that this revision petition has been filed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Deputy Govt. Advocate. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that once the document was registered and returned the Collector had no jurisdiction to impose the penalty as he had become functus officio. AIR 1266 MP 20 was cited wherein a reference under sec- 57 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act being made by the Board of Revenue as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, in case where the Sub-Registrar sent a deed after its registration to the Collector under paragraph 232 of the Registration Manual reporting that the deed was insufficiently stampted, it was held that after the registration of the deed, the registering authority had no power to hold enquiry regarding the value of the property covered by the deed and call upon the executant to pay the deficit stamp duty. It was further held that the power to impound an instrument can be exercised under Sec, 33 (1) of Stamp Act only when the instrument is produced before the registration in the performance of their function that is only so long as the function is not performed or completed, and not afterwards. Paragraphs 231 and 232 of the Registration Manual did not say that after a document is admitted to registration the registering officer can make a report to the Collector that it was not sufficiently stamped. AIR 1930 Bombay 392 was also cited where a sale certificate granted to the purchaser by the court had only a 4 annas stamp though it should have borne a stamp of eight annas. A copy of the certificates was sent to the Sub-Registrar who informed the court that it was insufficiently stamped. The Judge got the certificate back from the purchaser and thinking that he had power to accept the document and impose a penalty, asked for the opinion of the High Court. It was held that until the judge signed the sale certificate there was no instrument and so the sale certificate could not be said to come before the judge in the performance of his function, when it was submitted to him for his signature and seal on the first occasion. It was further held that when the judge signed the certificate on the first occasion} he was functus officio and therefore he was not acting judicially in allowing second four anna stamp to be attached. It was also held that as that judge when the certificate was presented to him for the second time was functus officio, he could not impound it under Sec. 33 (1) nor had he any legal authority in the exercise of his own inherent powers to recover the requisite stamp of additional value. AIR 1961 Supreme Court 787 was also cited wherein it was held that where an executed instrument is presented before Collector under Sec. 33 of Stamp Act for his opinion uinder Sec. 31 as to proper duty in regard to an instrument, the Collector had no power to impound the document. AIR 1958 Raj 291 was also cited where it was held that the powers to demand proper duty and penalty is conferred upon the Collector by Sec 40 (l))b ). That section however, is applicable when the Collector impounds any instrument under sec. 33 or receives any instrument sent to him under Sec. 38 sub Section (2 ). Where after the original document had been taken away after registration the Registration Inspector after scrutinizing the copy of the document reports to the Tehsildar that the document was improperly stamped and the Tehsildar forwarded the papers to the Collector for guidance, the original document never came to be impounded and therefore Sec. 40 had no aupplication. The document not having been impounded either by the Collector or by any other officer sent to him under Sec. 38 the occasion for the demand of any deficit duty and penalty had not arisen. The Collector had no jurisdiction therefore to make a demand of any deficit duty and penalty.