TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a copy of a mortgage deed received by the local registering authority after registration of the original instrument outside the State could be treated as an "instrument" for the purposes of the Karnataka Stamp Act, and whether the authorities could demand deficit stamp duty and proceed under Sections 33 and 46-A of that Act.
Analysis: The definition of "instrument" under Section 2(j) of the Karnataka Stamp Act covers a document by which rights or liabilities are created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. A copy forwarded under Sections 66 and 67 of the Registration Act, 1908 is distinct from the original registered document and is only a copy filed in Book No. 1. The power under Section 33(1) arises only when an instrument chargeable with duty is produced before, or comes before, the officer in the performance of his functions, and it permits impounding only of such instrument if not duly stamped. Likewise, Section 46-A applies only where an instrument chargeable with duty has not been duly stamped and authorises recovery of short levy in respect of such instrument. On the admitted facts, neither the original mortgage deed nor any instrument was produced before the authority in Karnataka; only a copy was received. The demand for deficit duty therefore proceeded on a misapplication of the statutory provisions and the cited Supreme Court decision, which dealt with an instrument and not a mere copy, did not govern the present facts.
Conclusion: The copy of the mortgage deed was not an "instrument" within the meaning of the Karnataka Stamp Act, and the authorities had no jurisdiction to demand deficit stamp duty or invoke Sections 33 and 46-A against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The impugned demand and consequential recovery proceedings were unsustainable in law, and the writ petition succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Stamp-duty liability and the power to impound or recover deficit duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act arise only in respect of an instrument, not a mere copy forwarded after registration of the original document elsewhere.
TaxTMI 
