JUDGMENT : RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Arts. 14, 300A and 226 of the Constitution of India for the following prayers : (A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of or a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or a writ of or a writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to quash and set aside : (i) the impugned action of the respondent of impounding the instruments, namely the Deeds of Assignment dated 3rd October, 1997 and 19th October, 1999 at Annexure "A" (colly) hereto; (ii) the impugned Notices dated 23rd November, 2000 at Annexure "B" (colly.) hereto; and (iii) the impugned orders dated 17th January, 2001 passed by the respondent, at Annexure "C" (colly.) hereto; (B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned orders at Annexure "C" (colly.) hereto; (C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent, his officers and agents from initiating any coercive measures for recovery of the alleged differential stamp duty and/or penalty as demanded by the respondent in the impugned orders at Annexure "C" (colly.) hereto. (D) Ex-parte ad-interim stay in terms of prayers (B) and (C) may kindly be granted. (E) Any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may be granted. 2. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Mihir Thakore appearing with learned Counsel, Shri Sandeep Singhi for Singhi & Co. for the petitioners referred to the papers and submitted that show-cause notice and impounding of the document in purported exercise of powers under Sec. 33 read with Sec. 7(3) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 as applicable to the Gujarat is bad and illegal. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore referred to the papers and submitted that as per deed of assignment of trade mark dated 3rd October, 1997, assignment of the trade mark has been made for which the registration has been made at the office at Bombay upon payment of stamp duty. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore referred to the papers and submitted that as per deed of assignment of trade mark dated 3rd October, 1997, assignment of the trade mark has been made for which the registration has been made at the office at Bombay upon payment of stamp duty. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore submitted that the document has been impounded as per the order dated 17-1-2001 produced at Annexure-C in purported exercise of power under Sec. 7(3) read with Sec. 33 of the Stamp Act for the alleged deficit of stamp duty. He submitted that the notice at Annexure-B dated 23-11-2000 was issued under Sec. 39(1)(b) of the Stamp Act, pursuant to which, the document has been impounded and a close look at the notice would clearly suggest that nowhere in the notice, it has been mentioned that the document is required to be impounded. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore submitted that as could be seen from the deed of assignment, it is evident that deed of assignment dated 3rd October, 1997 is not executed or registered in Gujarat and since it is regarding the assignment of the trade mark, it will not have any situs. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore, therefore, submitted that situs of said property would be at a place where such document is registered before the authority like Bombay in the present case. He submitted that deed of assignment of trade mark has been duly registered on payment of stamp duty, and therefore, the respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction whatsoever. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore submitted that same was replied that considering the definition of 'conveyance' as provided in Sec. 2(g) of the Stamp Act, it includes movable and immovable property. The movable property as defined in Sec. 2(pa) of the Stamp Act provides as under : " 'Movable property' includes standing timber, growing crops and grass, fruits upon and juice in trees and property of every other description, except immovable property, by which any right or liability is or is purported to be created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded." 3. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore, therefore, submitted that immovable includes of every other description except movable property, therefore, trade mark would be a property of every other description except immovable property for the purpose of Bombay Stamp Act as applicable in the State of Gujarat. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore, therefore, submitted that immovable includes of every other description except movable property, therefore, trade mark would be a property of every other description except immovable property for the purpose of Bombay Stamp Act as applicable in the State of Gujarat. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore, therefore, submitted that as trade mark in question was assigned by deed of assignment executed at Bombay, the respondent authority in Gujarat would not have any basis for issuance of such notice as it has no jurisdiction. He emphasised that as execution and registration of such deed of assignment has taken place at Bombay, situs of the property would be at Bombay, and therefore, once the trade mark is registered and stood transferred at Bombay, nothing was required to be done for completion of such transaction of transfer. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore, therefore, submitted that the execution of assignment deed and registration thereof by itself would be a final act for the purpose of such assignment and transfer of such property like trade mark and no further step was required, and therefore, the authority at Gujarat like the respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction. 4. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore also submitted that inspection visit of the department of the Sales Tax is also unauthorised. For that purpose, he referred to Sec. 68 of the Stamp Act and submitted that it refers to the power of the Collector or authorised officer to enter the premises and inspect the document but impound or seisure of the document under Sec. 33 of the Stamp Act could be made subject to the procedure provided in Sec. 33. For that purpose, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore referred to Sec. 33 read with Sec. 33A and submitted that as provided in Sec. 33A, if the instrument is not duly stamped and is registered under the Registration Act, 1908, the Registering Officer may call for the original instrument and after recording the reasons in writing may proceed to impound it. For that purpose, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore referred to Sec. 33 read with Sec. 33A and submitted that as provided in Sec. 33A, if the instrument is not duly stamped and is registered under the Registration Act, 1908, the Registering Officer may call for the original instrument and after recording the reasons in writing may proceed to impound it. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore submitted that since the deed of assignment has been registered at Bombay assuming that there was some mistake or instrument was not duly stamped, it is the authority at Bombay which could have called upon to explain and may have called for the instrument and after giving an opportunity of hearing and after recording the reasons in writing could have impounded such document. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore submitted that no such procedure has been followed. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore submitted that in the facts of the case when the document was produced for inquiry, information could be collected but no such document could have been impounded, and therefore, the impugned action and the impugned order is without any jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of Stamp Act. Section 3 of the Stamp Act referred to instruments chargeable with duty. He submitted that clause (b) of Sec. 3 of the Stamp Act provides as under : "Every instrument mentioned in Schedule I, which, not having been previously executed by any person, is executed out of the State on or after the said date, relates to any property situate, or to any matter or thing done or to be done, in this State and is received in this State." 5. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore, therefore, emphasised word 'received' and 'to any matter or thing done or to be done in this State'. He submitted that trade mark has no situs, and therefore, it could have situs 'as required under intellectual property rights like Trade Mark Act, therefore, the registration is made for same or assignment of such trade mark. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore submitted that if it has no situs, it cannot be said that the trade mark had situs in State of Gujarat when the deed of assignment of the trade mark as required under the law has been registered at Bombay. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore submitted that if it has no situs, it cannot be said that the trade mark had situs in State of Gujarat when the deed of assignment of the trade mark as required under the law has been registered at Bombay. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore submitted that when such property like trade mark is assigned by deed of assignment, for which, the registration is made at the office at Bombay, the jurisdiction of the authority at Ahmedabad in State of Gujarat cannot have any jurisdiction. He emphasised that since Act is the State Act, the territorial jurisdiction of law would be within a particular area of the State. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore referred .to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of 20th Century Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2000 (6) SCC 12 . He pointedly emphasised the observation, which reads as under : "While examining the power of States Legislatures under Entry 54 of List II in earlier part of this judgment, we have noticed that the situs of the sale or purchase is wholly immaterial as regards the inter-State trade or commerce, as held in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltds, case. Further, the State Legislature cannot by law, treat sales outside the State and sales in the course of import as sales within the State by fixing the situs of sales within its State in the definition of sale, as it is within the exclusive domain of the appropriate Legislature, i.e. Parliament to fix the location of sale by creating legal fiction or otherwise." 6. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore submitted that there is no justification how the stamp duty is payable and if it is payable, it has to be shown as to on what basis or transaction, it is payable, He therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed is without any jurisdiction and liable to be quashed and set aside. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in case of 2006 (145) STC 523 (Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises v. Sales Tax Officer) and submitted that the incident of taxability is at Bombay and deed of assignment is registered at Bombay, and therefore, the authority in Gujarat will not have any jurisdiction. He has referred to and relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hanuman Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1958 Raj. 291 . Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore has referred to and relied upon the judgment delivered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 364 of 2006 in case of Co-operative Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Lachman Singh Bhagat Singh, and emphasised the observation made in Para No.3, which reads as under: "Now, it has to be seen whether the original instrument required to be stamped in the State. Section 3, Stamp Act, is the charging Section under the Act and gives all the documents which are liable to duty under it. Substituting Kapurthala State 'for British India' to make the Section applicable mutatis mutandis the result would be that a document (other than a bill of exchange or promissory note, which of course, the present document is not) executed out of the State is liable to stamp duty if it relates to any property situate, or to any matter or thing done or to be done, in the State and is received in the State." 7. Therefore again, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore submitted that since nothing is required to be done in respect of the trade mark which has been sought to be by deed of assignment, no duty could have been levied and the impugned notice and the order may be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned A.G.P. Shri Bharat Vyas submitted that there is an alternative remedy provided by way of an Appeal under the Statute, and therefore, the petition is not maintainable. He referred to the petition and submitted that the grounds mentioned in the petition are not substituted. Learned A.G.P. Shri Vyas also referred to the notice and the impugned order. He has also referred to the deed of assignment of trade mark dated 3rd October, 1997 at Annexure-A and submitted that though it was executed at Bombay when it came to the Gujarat, stamp duty has to be paid as per the Stamp Act. He submitted that the Sales Tax Officer is entitled to impound when such document was in Gujarat and during the course of his inquiry, when he has found such document, it could be impounded. He submitted that the Sales Tax Officer is entitled to impound when such document was in Gujarat and during the course of his inquiry, when he has found such document, it could be impounded. Learned A.G.P. Shri Vyas has referred to the provisions of Sec. 68 of the Stamp Act regarding the power of Collector and Sec. 33 regarding impounding of document. Learned A.G.P. Shri Vyas submitted that by deed of assignment at Annexure-A, trade mark is assigned and consideration is paid, and therefore, it has to be considered for the purpose of payment of stamp duty. He submitted that though it is a movable property when consideration has been paid, the provisions of the Stamp Act would be attracted. Learned A.G.P. Shri Vyas has also referred to the definition of 'trade mark' as provided in Sec. 2(2)(a) of the Trade Mark Act and submitted that the trade mark would be immovable property. He also referred to the definition of 'immovable property' in the Stamp Act read with definition of 'conveyance' as provided under Sec. 2(g) of Stamp Act. Learned A.G.P. Shri Vyas submitted that any interest in the property like trade mark would be included in conveyance. He, therefore, submitted that the present petition may not be entertained. He has referred to and relied upon the judgment in case of L. Hriday Narain v. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly, reported in AIR 1971 SC 33 . He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment in case of J.M. Baxi & Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Kandla, reported 2000 (120) ELT 29 and submitted that normally the High Court would not interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. In rejoinder, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Mihir Thakore submitted that issue regarding the jurisdiction is required to be considered. He submitted that whether action is without jurisdiction and/or authority, the petition would be maintainable and alternatively remedy by way of Appeal would be barred. He emphasised and submitted that as the assignment of trade mark is not related to the property in Gujarat and when the property stood transferred pursuant to such deed of assignment registered at Bombay, the authority or stamp authority in Gujarat has no jurisdiction. He emphasised and submitted that as the assignment of trade mark is not related to the property in Gujarat and when the property stood transferred pursuant to such deed of assignment registered at Bombay, the authority or stamp authority in Gujarat has no jurisdiction. He emphasised that as submitted hereinabove even the instrument could not have been impounded without following procedure, and therefore, such action is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Companies District 1, Calcutta, reported in AIR 1961 SC 372 and emphasised that it is well settled, however, that though writ of prohibition and certiorari will not issue, "It is well settled however that though the writ of prohibition or certiorari will not issue against an executive authority, the High Courts have power to issue, in a fit case an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting without jurisdiction. Where such action of an executive authority acting without jurisdiction subjects or is likely to subject to a person to lengthy proceedings and necessary harassment, the High Courts, it is well settled, will issue appropriate orders or directions to prevent such consequences, ............... When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the Courts to give such relief in fit cases and the Courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons." 10. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present petition can be allowed or not. 11. From perusal of the records and rival submissions, it is evident that the petitioner has been assigned the trade mark by assigner pursuant to the deed of assignment dated 3rd October, 1997 registered at Bombay. As could be seen from the deed of assignment produced at Annexure-A, it refers to the assignment of trade mark under the Trade Mark Act to be used by the petitioner. Therefore, as rightly submitted by learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore that trade mark does not have situs in order to decide situs in such cases of intellectual property, necessarily it has to consider with reference to the provisions of the Trade Mark Act. Therefore, as rightly submitted by learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore that trade mark does not have situs in order to decide situs in such cases of intellectual property, necessarily it has to consider with reference to the provisions of the Trade Mark Act. Admittedly, such trade mark could be assigned by deed of assignment validly executed and registered before the appropriate authority like the trade mark authority at Bombay. The deed of assignment for such assignment of trade mark has been executed and registered at the Bombay and nothing further or any relation to property is required to be done in State of Gujarat. Therefore, entire transaction has taken place at Bombay and territorial jurisdiction under the Stamp Act as applicable to the Gujarat i.e. the authorities of the State of Gujarat will not have any jurisdiction. Further, as could be seen from the record, the document has been impounded by the Sales Tax Officer when he visited for the purpose of inquiry and impounded the document. However, a close look at the provisions of Sec. 68, it referred to the power of the Collector and Sec. 33 referred to impounding of the document or instrument. Section 68 provides for the power of the Collector to enter the premises and inspect the documents, and thereafter, he may seize or impound subject to following procedure as laid down in Sec. 33. The provisions of Sec. 33A regarding impounding of the instrument clearly provides that when the instrument is not duly stamped registered under the Registration Act, 1908, the Registering Officer may call for the original instrument from the party and after giving an opportunity of hearing and recording the reasons may impound it. In other words, it is the Registering Officer, who will have right to impound such document after the procedure as stated above. In the facts of the case, admittedly since deed of assignment has been registered at Bombay, the Registration Officer under the Registration Act may have power to call for such instrument or deed of assignment, and thereafter, subject to procedure as stated above may impound. Further, it is thereafter the registering authority, who may send it to the Collector of the stamp under Sec. 37 of the Stamp Act to initiate further action for the recovery of the deficit duty and penalty. Further, it is thereafter the registering authority, who may send it to the Collector of the stamp under Sec. 37 of the Stamp Act to initiate further action for the recovery of the deficit duty and penalty. In the facts of the present case, admittedly the Sales Tax Officer had not followed the procedure apart from the jurisdiction and has no occasion nor has given any reason or opportunity of hearing. It is in this background when the notice dated 23-11-2000 issued by the Superintendent of Stamps, Gandhinagar is considered, it is made evident that by deed of assignment, the registered trade mark is said to have been purchased. Therefore, it has considered it as purchase or sale of the trade mark and resorting to Art. 20 of Schedule-I of the Stamp Act, the assessment has been made. For that purpose, reference is made to Sec. 2(g) of the Stamp Act and it has been treated as 'conveyance', by which, the property (trade mark) is conveyed. It appears that the respondent has totally misdirected in appreciating the statutory provisions and also interpreting same while applying to the transaction. It is well accepted that by deed of assignment, the trade mark could be assigned and it would not be a sale, but it would be a assignment of the right. Therefore, deed of assignment is covered under Art. 20. Still as could be seen, consideration has been stated in deed of assignment, on the basis of which, stamp duty has been paid at the time of registration of such deed of assignment. Therefore, even examining on merits with regard to the aspect of duty, there is no justification for impounding or exercising any power. In fact the stamp authority at Gujarat cannot have any territorial jurisdiction in respect of the document executed outside the limit of the State of Gujarat or in respect of the property situated outside the State of Gujarat. As stated above, situs of the trade mark which is sought to be conveyed or transferred by such deed of assignment of the trade mark could be at the place where such document is required to be registered under the relevant Act like the Trade Mark Act. As stated above, situs of the trade mark which is sought to be conveyed or transferred by such deed of assignment of the trade mark could be at the place where such document is required to be registered under the relevant Act like the Trade Mark Act. Therefore, since it is required to be registered when the trade mark is registered at Bombay and it has been so registered on payment of the stamp duty, there is no justification for usurping such power or jurisdiction for the purpose of levy of stamp duty. Further, apart from the jurisdiction of the stamp authority in Gujarat, the issuance of notice itself is also without any jurisdiction or justification. The purported exercise of power could be in relation to any act or thing or a transaction, for which, the Stamp Act as applicable in Gujarat is attracted. As rightly submitted, Sec. 3 provides instrument chargeable with duty and clause (b) of Sec. 3 which has been reproduced hereinabove clearly state that if it relates to the property situated or matter or thing done or to be done in this State and is received in the State, it could be subject to any charge. However, as discussed hereinabove, pursuant to deed of assignment of trade mark registered at Bombay, nothing further is required to be done in State of Gujarat, and therefore, such instrument/deed of assignment would not be chargeable at all as nothing further in the matter is required to be done. Moreover, action of impounding such document or deed of assignment without compliance with the procedure would also be bad. As referred to hereinabove, provision of Sec. 33 clearly lays down the procedure before it could be impounded. Notice at Annexure-B issued by the respondent in purported exercise of power does not fulfil the requirement of law of hearing and also reasoned order inasmuch as the impugned order dated 17-1-2001. It appears that focus has been given by the respondent on the assigner which is a company in Gujarat and based on that, it has referred to manufacturer of the product in Gujarat for the purpose of situs. There is misconception with regard to the manufacture of product by a Company at the place and situs of the trade mark registration thereafter it is altogether is a different aspect. There is misconception with regard to the manufacture of product by a Company at the place and situs of the trade mark registration thereafter it is altogether is a different aspect. The place of manufacture of product by Company cannot be related to situs of the trade mark, which could have a much wider scope inasmuch as the Company may have been manufacturing product at place, but the registration of the trade mark and situs of the trade mark may have much larger area, and therefore, it appears to be a misconception in the procedure on such assumption for the purpose of raising jurisdiction that it will have a local situs since the product is manufactured in Gujarat. Therefore, since situs of such product manufacturing in Gujarat is treated as local in India for the purpose of attracting the provisions of the Act, it is a fallacious attempt to assume jurisdiction. As discussed above, situs of the trade mark has to be necessarily at the place where such trade mark is to be registered with appropriate authority under the Trade Mark Act like in the present case at Bombay. Therefore, when the deed of assignment is registered at Bombay, the authority in Gujarat will not have any jurisdiction. Again as stated above, the product may have a manufacturing unit at one place but for the purpose of situs and the right of the trade mark under the Trade Mark Act may have a wider area, and therefore, the impugned notices well as impugned order are contrary to the statutory provisions and in fact is without any jurisdiction. Since, the deed of assignment has been executed and registered in respect of the trade mark at Bombay and when nothing further in the matter is required to be done in State of Gujarat, the stamp authority in Gujarat will not have any jurisdiction. It is well accepted that the State Legislature as per the entry in the scheme of Constitution would be made in respect of subject or laws as applicable within the territorial of State and will not have any application outside the territorial of the State. It is well accepted that the State Legislature as per the entry in the scheme of Constitution would be made in respect of subject or laws as applicable within the territorial of State and will not have any application outside the territorial of the State. Therefore, when the Stamp Act as applicable in the Gujarat cannot have any territorial jurisdiction outside the State of Gujarat authority of the respondent No.2 cannot have any jurisdiction in respect of any act or thing done with regard to the deed of assignment at Bombay. Further, as the deed of assignment of trade mark has been registered and executed at office at Bombay for the purpose of movable property like the trade mark, the aspect of registration under the relevant law has to be considered, and therefore, in respect of any such document registered outside the limits of the State of Gujarat, the respondent will not have any authority or jurisdiction. 12. One more aspect which is required to be considered is the maintainability of the petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and alternative remedy which has been provided by the State. It is well settled that when the order or action of the authority is without jurisdiction, the High Court will have jurisdiction and as rightly emphasized by learned Senior Counsel, Shri Thakore, it is rather an obligation of the Court to set aside the order causing harassment. Moreover, a useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of L. Hriday Narain (supra). Therefore, since the matter has been admitted, it will not be barred to entertainment of the petition on such ground that the alternative remedy is available. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed. 13. In the circumstances, the present petition stands allowed in terms of Para No. 8(A). The impugned notices dated 23-11-2000 at Annexure-B collectively and the impugned orders dated 17-1-2001 at Annexure-C collectively issued in purported exercise of powers under the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. FURTHER ORDER : After the order was pronounced, learned A.G.P. Shri Bhatt has requested that the operation of this order may be stayed. However in the facts and circumstances and having regard to the issued involved, request is turned down. Petition allowed.