Stamp duty on copies of instruments may arise, but impounding and penalty powers do not automatically extend to a mere copy.

A copy of an instrument produced under section 125 of the Companies Act was treated as chargeable with differential stamp duty under section 7(1) read with section 19 of the Bombay Stamp Act, because the charging scheme extended to counterparts, duplicates and copies received in the State. However, the impounding and penalty machinery under sections 33 and 39 did not extend to a mere copy, since the copy itself did not create or purport to create a right or liability and the statute did not clearly authorise penal recovery against it. The decision thus distinguishes charging liability from enforcement powers under the Stamp Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a copy of an instrument produced under section 125 of the Companies Act was chargeable with differential stamp duty under section 7(1) read with section 19 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. (ii) Whether the Collector and Assistant Superintendent of Stamps could impound such copy and levy duty and penalty under sections 33 and 39 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.

Issue (i): Whether a copy of an instrument produced under section 125 of the Companies Act was chargeable with differential stamp duty under section 7(1) read with section 19 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.

Analysis: Section 19 dealt with instruments executed outside the State and later received in the State, and section 7(1) extended the same liability to counterparts, duplicates and copies of instruments. The statutory scheme treated a copy of an instrument in the same manner as the original for the limited purpose of charging duty when the original would have attracted higher duty on receipt in the State. The provision also incorporated the point of time at which liability arose, namely when the document was received in the State.

Conclusion: Yes. The copy was chargeable with differential duty under section 7(1) read with section 19, though it could not be described as an instrument in the ordinary sense.

Issue (ii): Whether the Collector and Assistant Superintendent of Stamps could impound such copy and levy duty and penalty under sections 33 and 39 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.

Analysis: Section 33 applied to an instrument chargeable with duty that came before the officer in the performance of his functions, while section 39 empowered recovery and penalty only in relation to an instrument within section 2(1). A copy did not itself create or purport to create any right or liability; that effect flowed from the original instrument. Since the penal machinery was not clearly extended to a mere copy, the power to impound and levy penalty could not be invoked against it. The absence of an express recovery mechanism was treated as a legislative gap rather than a basis for enlarging the penal provisions.

Conclusion: No. The copy could not be impounded under sections 33 and 39, and duty and penalty could not be levied under those provisions.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that a copy of the charge instrument attracted differential stamp duty, but the penal and recovery machinery of the Stamp Act did not extend to impounding the copy or levying penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A copy of an instrument may be brought within the charging provisions for stamp duty by express statutory language, but a penal or recovery provision cannot be extended to it unless the statute clearly treats the copy itself as an instrument creating or purporting to create a right or liability.

---