https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286809 An unstamped document that had already been produced, admitted in evidence and acted upon could not support recovery of penalty from the executant under Section 29 of the Stamp Act; recovery, if available at all, had to proceed under Section 44 and only as part of costs in the decree. After judgment, the Subordinate Judge was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to later impound the document and levy penalty. The impounding order was therefore illegal and was set aside, while the recovery decree on the adopted basis could not stand. en-us Fri, 12 Mar 1937 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:26:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286809 An unstamped document that had already been produced, admitted in evidence and acted upon could not support recovery of penalty from the executant under Section 29 of the Stamp Act; recovery, if available at all, had to proceed under Section 44 and only as part of costs in the decree. After judgment, the Subordinate Judge was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to later impound the document and levy penalty. The impounding order was therefore illegal and was set aside, while the recovery decree on the adopted basis could not stand. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Mar 1937 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286809