Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1976 DIGILAW 183 (PAT)

Patliputra Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd. v. State Of Bihar

1976-09-02

HARI LAL AGRAWAL, S.K.CHOUDHURI

body1976
Judgment S.K.Chaudhary, J. 1. The petitioner which is a society registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (Bihar Act VI of 1935, hereinafter called the Act) prays for quashing the notice (Annexure 1) issued by the Stamp Deputy Collector, Legal Section, Patna (respondent No. 2 dated 18.12.1971 to the petitioner demanding Rs 284.20 payable under the document presented for registration and directing it to show cause as to why fine should not be imposed upon. It the petitioner also prays for issue of a mandamus directing the District Registrar, Patna respondent No. 3 register the sale deed presented before him for registration. It may be stated here that the petitioner presented a document of transfer executed on its behalf for registration before the registering authority. A notice of demand dated 18.7.1971 contained in Annexure T aforesaid was issued to the petitioner. 2. It is not disputed before this Court that the petitioner which is a registered society as aforesaid is exempted from payment of any stamp duty by notification issued under Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act II of 1899 hereinafter called the Stamp Act; Our attention was drawn to item 27 of appendix V of the Stamp Act under which exemption is claimed, which runs as follows: II. Duties chargeable under the Act have been remitted by Government in respect of the instruments of the classes mentioned below. E-Other documents. 27. Instrument executed by or on behalf of any society fop the time being registered or deemed to be registered under Section 28 Clause (b) of the Co- operative Societies Act, 1912 (II of 1912) or instrument executed by any officer or member of any such society and relating to the business of the society "other than cheques of individual members drawn against their current accounts with (Co-operative Banks)." Learned Counsel for both parties have agreed that the petitioner has been exempted from paying any stamp duty on a document executed by the petitioner in favour of its members under the aforesaid provision. It is also not in dispute that under the impugned annexure namely, Annexure 1 two per cent of the value of the property mentioned in the document presented for registration has been demanded by respondent No. 2 as stamp duty which comes to a figure of Rs. 284.20 paise. 3. Mr. It is also not in dispute that under the impugned annexure namely, Annexure 1 two per cent of the value of the property mentioned in the document presented for registration has been demanded by respondent No. 2 as stamp duty which comes to a figure of Rs. 284.20 paise. 3. Mr. J.C. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner being a body exempted from payment of any stamp duty under item No. 27 of Appendix V of the Stamp Act, respondent No. 2 was not justified in demanding two per cent of duty on the value of the property covered by the sale deed by applying Section 86 of the Bihar Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1951 (Bihar Act 35 of 1951 hereinafter called the Trust Act). The two facts which I have already mentioned are not in dispute and no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents controverting any of the allegations which have been made in those writ application. Rather Mr. S.B.N. Singh, Government Pleader No. 2 appearing on behalf of the respondents stated on instruction that the levy of original stamp duty payable under the Act was not demanded from the petitioner on the sale deed presented for registration as the petitioner society is exempted from payment of any stamp duty but only two per cent on the value of the property intended to be transferred under the sale deed was demanded from the petitioner under Annexure 1 under Section 86(1) of the Trust Act. 4. Under Section 64(2) of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (Bihar and Orissa Act VI 1935) (briefly the Co-operative Societies Act), the State Government i.e. the Collecting Government may by notification remit in the case of a registered society or class of registered societies the stamp duty payable upon an instrument executed by or on behalf of the registered society "and relating to the business of such society or any class of such instruments," The awards, etc., mentioned therein are also exempted from the stamp duty. The next relevant section to be referred to is Section 9(1)(a) of the Stamp Act under which the Government may by or order published in the official gazette reduce, remit or compound the duties chargeable upon any instrument or any particular class of instrument or any of the instruments belonging to such class or any instrument when executed by or in favour of any particular class of persons or by or in favour or any member of such class. It will be relevant to refer here Section 5 of the Co-operative Societies Act which runs as follows: Construction of references to Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 in enactments. All references to the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), occurring in any enactment made by any authority in India and for the time being in force in (the States) of Bihar (and Orissa) shall, in the application of any such enactment to the said (States) be construed as reference to this Act. Section 5 aforesaid has to be read with item No. 27 of Appendix V of the Stamp Act. Reading those two provisions together it is manifest that a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act is exempted from payment of any stamp duty and thus the petitioner which is a society registered under the Co- operative Societies Act stands exempted from payment of any stamp duty in relation to any instrument executed by it or on behalf of it and relating to its business. 5. A short question for decision in this case is as to whether the sale deed in the present case executed by the petitioner is chargeable to two per cent of stamp duty on the value of the property intended to be transferred under the said document under Section 86 of the Trust Act. In order to appreciate the argument it is necessary to quote the relevant Sub-section (1) of the said Section 86 which reads as follows: 86. In order to appreciate the argument it is necessary to quote the relevant Sub-section (1) of the said Section 86 which reads as follows: 86. Duty on certain transfers of immovable property-(1) The duty imposed by the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (II of 1899), as modified from time to time in its application to the State of Bihar, on instruments of sale, gift and usufructuary mortgage, respectively, of immovable property shall, in the case of instruments affecting immovable property (situated in the municipality or any local area comprised in the Trust and executed on or after the date on which the provisions of this Act come into force within such municipality or local area), be increased by two per centum on the value of the propertyso situated, or (in the case of an usufructuary mortgage) on the amount secured by the instrument, as set forth in the instrument. (Italic is mine). On reading the aforesaid sub-section it is clear that there has been ant increase of stamp duty by two per cent on the value of the property than what is payable for the time being. Therefore it is manifest that in a case where a document executed by a registered Co-operative society is exempted from paying any stamp duty under the Stamp Act the question of increase of any stamp duty by two per cent does not arise. In my opinion, therefore Section 86(1) has no application to the present case and consequently the demand that has been made under Annexure 1 dated 18.12.1971 by respondent No. 2 from the petitioner is illegal and based upon an erroneous assumption that the stamp is leviable under the aforesaid Section 86(1) of the Trust Act. 6. In the result, the application is allowed and the notice of demand of stamp duty contained in Annexure1 dated 18.12.1971 is quashed. I may state here that if there is no other impediment for registering the document than respondent No. 3 would register the document in question in accordance with law. I would however make no order as to costs. Hari Lal Agrawal, J. 7 I agree.