https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279060 Section 13 of the Indian Stamp Act read with Rule 7(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Stamp Rules, 1942 was construed as a revenue-protecting provision, not a technical bar to genuine transactions. The requirement is satisfied where the facts show that an impressed stamp sheet was actually utilised when the instrument was executed, even if it was not written upon in every case. Cancellation marks such as a cross, signature, or similar indication may be sufficient evidence of use. A stricter view that every stamp sheet must always be physically written upon was rejected as too narrow. en-us Thu, 21 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Mar 2019 16:00:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279060 Section 13 of the Indian Stamp Act read with Rule 7(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Stamp Rules, 1942 was construed as a revenue-protecting provision, not a technical bar to genuine transactions. The requirement is satisfied where the facts show that an impressed stamp sheet was actually utilised when the instrument was executed, even if it was not written upon in every case. Cancellation marks such as a cross, signature, or similar indication may be sufficient evidence of use. A stricter view that every stamp sheet must always be physically written upon was rejected as too narrow. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 21 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279060