Stamp duty exemption notifications may be amended; forest-produce conveyances above the monetary ceiling lose exemption.

A notification issued under section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act may validly amend an existing exemption, because the power to grant exemption includes the power to vary or rescind it. The instrument was treated as a conveyance within the charging scheme, and the burden of stamp duty fell on the grantee under section 29 and the contract terms; the proviso to section 3(bb) did not shift liability to the State. The five-thousand-rupee ceiling in item No. 11 of the amended exemption was read as governing the whole entry, including the general category of forest-produce conveyances, so instruments above that limit lost exemption and remained liable to stamp duty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a notification issued under section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act could validly amend an existing exemption and require payment of stamp duty. (ii) Whether the stamp duty on the instrument was payable by the State or by the petitioner, and whether the proviso to section 3(bb) applied. (iii) Whether the monetary limit of five thousand rupees in item No. 11 of the amended exemption applied only to the six specifically listed instruments or also to the general category of forest-produce conveyances.

Issue (i): Whether a notification issued under section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act could validly amend an existing exemption and require payment of stamp duty.

Analysis: Section 3 was the charging provision, while section 9 merely empowered the Government to grant, amend, vary, or rescind exemptions. The subsequent notification did not create a fresh levy; it only modified the earlier exemption. The power to issue such a notification included the power to amend it, and section 21 of the General Clauses Act supported that construction.

Conclusion: The notification was valid, and the challenge to its competence failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the stamp duty on the instrument was payable by the State or by the petitioner, and whether the proviso to section 3(bb) applied.

Analysis: The instrument was a conveyance falling within the charging scheme of the Act, and section 29 placed the burden on the grantee in the absence of a contrary contractual term. The contract also required the buyer to bear stamp duty and registration charges. The proviso to section 3(bb) only exempted the State where the State itself was liable to pay duty, which was not the position here.

Conclusion: The petitioner was liable to pay the stamp duty, and the proviso to section 3(bb) had no application.

Issue (iii): Whether the monetary limit of five thousand rupees in item No. 11 of the amended exemption applied only to the six specifically listed instruments or also to the general category of forest-produce conveyances.

Analysis: Item No. 11 covered both a general category of conveyances of standing trees or other forest produce in a Government forest and, separately, six specified contracts. Although the punctuation suggested a possible distinction, the surrounding scheme and the object of the amended notification showed that the five-thousand-rupee limit was intended to govern the entire item. The petitioner's instrument exceeded that limit and therefore did not remain exempt.

Conclusion: The limit applied to the whole of item No. 11, so the instrument was not exempt from stamp duty.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed on all substantive questions, and the demand of stamp duty on the resin contracts was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory exemption notification may validly be amended under the enabling power, and where the scheme and context show that a monetary ceiling governs the entire exemption entry, the exemption is unavailable once the instrument exceeds that ceiling.

---