http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: NEW CENTRAL JUTE MILLS CO.  LTD.AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/01/1963

BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. WANCHOO, K.N. SHAH, J.C.

CITATION:  1963 AIR 1307            1964 SCR  (1) 535

ACT: Stamp Duty-"Duly stamped"-Meaning of-Mortgage deed  executed in Uttar Pradesh in respect of property in West Bengal-Ditty payable on such instrument-Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899),  ss. 2 (ii), 3 (as amended in Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal),  s. 19 A, r. 3.

HEADNOTE: The  first petitioner, a Company with its registered  office at  Calcutta, is-the owner of a factory at Varanasi  in  the State  of Uttar Pradesh.  The State of Uttar Pradesh  having agreed  to advance a loan oh the mortgage of  the  Company’s assets at its jute mills at Budge Budge and at Ghusuri,  all situated  in West Bengal, the deed of mortgage was  executed at Lucknow in the State of Uttar Pradesh on March 22,  1957. To that deed, the petitioner affixed stamps of the value  of Rs.   1,08,751/purchased  from  the  Collector  of   stamps, Calcutta.   It was duly registered at Calcutta on  April  5, 1957.   On a reference made to the Board of  Revenue,  Uttar Pradesh,  the  Board held that as the  mortgage  deed  dated March 22, 1957, was executed at a place within Uttar Pradesh it must bear stamps issued by the Uttar Pradesh  Government. The  Board also held that the Company was liable to pay  Rs. 1,74,000/-  as  stamp duty on the document dated  March  22, 1957.  The petitioner filed a petition under Art. 32 of  the Constitution challenging the order of the Board of  Revenue. The petitioner contended that the document should have  been held to be duly stamped as it bore stamps in accordance with the law of West Bengal. Held,  that  the  mortgage deed dated March  22,  1957,  was executed  in  Uttar Pradesh, though it related  to  property situated  in West Bengal and was received in the  State  for registration.   The first dutiable event was  the  execution which  took  place in Uttar Pradesh.   The  second  dutiable event  was the receipt in West Bengal.  When it came  before the officers of Uttar Pradesh for a decision whether it  was duly stamped or not, the officers of 536 Uttar Pradesh were bound to hold that the instrument was not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

duly stamped as it did not bear Uttar Pradesh stamps, In the circumstances of the case, the fact that the instrument  had stamps  in accordance with the law of West Bengal could  not justify  a  conclusion that it had been duly  stamped.   The instrument  can be said to be duly stamped only if it  bears stamps of the amount and description in accordance with  the law  of the State concerned. The law includes not  only  the Act but also the rules framed under the Act. If an instrument after becoming liable to duty in one  State on  execution there becomes liable to duty also  in  another State  on  receipt  there’  it  must  first  be  stamped  in accordance  with the law of the first State and it will  not be required to be further stamped in accordance with the law of the second State when the rate of the second state is the same or lower.  Where the rate of the second Sate is higher, it will require to be stamped only with the excess amount in accordance  with  the law and rules in force in  the  second State.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition No. 13 of 1962. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for  the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. C.   K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, and B.   P. Maheshwari, for the petitioners. B.Sen, S. C. Mazumdar for P. K. Bose, for respondent No. 1. C.B.   Agarwal.   K.  S.  Hajela  and  C.  P.  Lal,   for respondents Nos. 2 to 6. T.V. R. Tatachari and P. D. Menon, for intervener No. 1. B.Sen,  and S. P. Varma for I. N. Shroff, for  intervener No. 2. B.Sen,  M. S. K. Sastri and B. H. Dhebar, for  intervener No. 3,  537 1963.  January 17.  The judgment of the court was  delivered by. DAS GUPTA, J.-Where an instrument executed in Uttar  Pradesh and consequently liable to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act as amended in Uttar Pradesh but relating to property  in West  Bengal bears stamps overprinted with the name of  West Bengal  comes before a public officer of Uttar  Pradesh,  is such  officer  right in holding that the instrument  is  not duly stamped inasmuch as it does not bear stamps overprinted with  the-name  of  Uttar Pradesh?  That  is  the  principal question which has arisen in this petition under Art. 32  of the Constitution. The  first  petitioner,  a Company  incorporated  under  the Indian Company’s Act with its registered office at Calcutta, is the owner of a factory at Varanasi. in the State of Uttar Pradesh.    The  petitioners  numbers  2  and  3   are   the shareholders of the first petitioner Company.  The State  of Uttar  Pradesh  having  agreed  to advance  a  loan  of  Rs. 1,45,00,000/on  the mortgage of the Company’s assets at  its jute  mills it Budge Budge and at Ghusuri, all  situated  in West Bengal, the deed of mortgage was executed at Lucknow in the State of Uttar Pradesh on March 22, 1957.  To this  deed the  first  petitioner affixed stamps of the  value  of  Rs. 1,08,751/- purchased from the Collector of Stamps, Calcutta. It  was  duly  registered  at  Calcutta  on  April  5,’1957. Thereafter, on March 23, 1957 by a deed executed between the first  petitioner and the State of Uttar Pradesh a  part  of the mortgage property in West Bengal was released and in its place  and stead a part of some properties of Uttar  Pradesh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

were  substituted.   The  deed-  of  substitution  was  duly stamped  and registered in Uttar Pradesh.  No objection  was then  taken  to the stamp affixed on the  original  deed  of mortgage.   In 1960 the first petitioner made a  request  to the-state of Uttar Pradesh to release 538 a  further part of the mortgage properties included  in  the original  mortgage  deed and to accept in  their  place  and stead the assets and properties of the Company’s factory  at Varanasi  as  substituted security.  A draft  deed  for  the substitution  was  sent  by  the  first  petitioner  to  the Collector  of  Varanasi  for  ascertaining  the  stamp  duty payable on it and for getting the benefits of reduced  rates of duty applicable in case of substitution of security.  The Collector  referred the matter to the Board of  Revenue  for adjudication   of  the  Stamp  duty  on  the  document   for substitution.   Ultimately,  the  Board  of  Revenue,  Uttar Pradesh,  decided  that as the original  document  had  been executed at a place within Uttar Pradesh it must bear stamps issued  by  the Uttar Pradesh Government.  It  rejected  the argument  that  the document of March 23, 1957  was  not  an instrument and therefore could bear the stamps issued by the West Bengal Government.  The Board of Revenue held that  the Company  was liable to pay, Rs. 1,74,000/- as stamp duty  on the  document dated March 23, 1957, before it can  avail  of the confessional rate provided for in substituted  security. Thereafter,  the  Collector of Varanasi, by a  letter  dated September  8, 1961, informed the first petitioner  that  (a) that  the  draft  deed submitted by  it  was  a  substituted security chargeable under Art. 40 (c) of Schedule 1-B of the Utttar Pradesh Stamp Amendment Act, 1958, with a duty of Rs. 7,554/-,  provided the original mortgage deed of  March  22, 1957, was "first got properly stamped by payment of  deficit duty  of Rs. 1,74,000/-".  The letter ended with  a  request for deposit of the deficit of Rs. 1,74,000/- on the mortgage deed of March 22, 1957, and also for deposit of Rs.  7,554/- for  the deed of substitution to be executed.  This  letter- from  the Collector was followed by a letter dated  November 17, 1961, from the Tehsildar, Chandauli, Varanasi, demanding payment of Rs. 1,74,000/within a week of the receipt of  the letter.   On  November 30, the first petitioner  replied  to this letter                             539 asking  for a month’s time.  The present petition was  filed on December 22, 1961. Primarily,   the  petitioner’s  case  is  that   under   the provisions of the Stamp Act a document cannot be said to  be unstamped  unless it comes within the mischief of s.  15  of the  Act  and so the Board of Revenue was wrong  in  holding that the mortgage deed of March 22, 1957, could not be  said to be properly stamped unless it bore stamps of the value of Rs. 1,74,000/- issued by the Uttar Pradesh Government.   The order was also challenged as illegal on the ground that  the petitioner had already paid stamp duty in West Bengal to the extent of Rs. 1,08,751/- "after proper adjudication  thereof by  the  Collector  of’  stamps,  Calcutta,  based  on   the provisions of a circular dated August 2, 1954, issued by the State  of West Bengal." Rule 3 of the Stamp Rules as  framed by the Uttar Pradesh Government (which provided that  stamps overprinted  with the words "Uttar Pradesh" or  the  letters "U.P.") was also attacked as unconstitutional on ’the ground that  it  constituted  an unreasonable  restriction  on  the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Art. 19 (1) (f) and 19 (1)  (f)  (g) of the Constitution.   Alternatively,  it  was contended  that the circular of the West  Bengal  Government

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

dated August 2, 1954 was null and void and the State of West Bengal had "illegally exacted the sum of Rs. 1,08,751/- from the petitioner without any authority of law in that behalf " and  had infringed the fundamental rights of the  petitioner under Art. 19 (1)(f) and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The  petitioner  asks for (i) a writ of certiorari  for  the quashing  of the order of the Board of Revenue dated  August 11,  1961; (ii) a writ in the nature of  mandamus  directing respondents 3, 4 and 5, viz., Mr. Bhargava Member, Board  of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, the Board of Revenue, Uttar  Pradesh and the Collector of Varanasi to forbear 540 from acting on the basis of the order dated August 11, 1961; (iii)  alternatively,  a  writ in  the  nature  of  mandamus directing the respondent No. 1, the State of West Bengal  to refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 1,08,751/-. The  petition  was resisted by the State of West  Bengal  as also by the other respondents, i. e., the State of U. P. and its officers. On  behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh is was  urged  that the  Board’s order dated August 11, 1961, was in  accordance with  law.   It appears from paragraph 19  of  the  counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 to 6 that the document  in  question, i. e., the  original  mortgage  deed dated  March  22, 1957, was impounded by  the  Inspector  of Stamps on August 9, 1961. The  State  of West Bengal denied that  the  circular  dated August 2, 1954, was illegal and also that "the State of West Bengal  had  illegally  exacted the sum  of  Rs.  1,08,751/- without authority of law." In view of the importance of  the questions raised, notices were issued to all the  Advocates- General  of  the States and Advocates,  General  of  several States appeared before us through their Counsel. The  learned Solicitor-General, who, appeared in support  of the  petitioner,  did not press the contention  against  the State  of West Bengal.  The only point seriously pressed  by him was that on a proper interpretation of the provisions of the  Stamp Act and the Rules framed thereunder it  would  be wrong to hold that the document required to be stamped  with the  stamps  purchased from U. P. Government.   The  learned Solicitor-General  did  not address us. on the  question  as regards the amount of the stamp duty.  541 There cannot be any doubt that when it becomes necessary for any  public  officer of a State using that word to  mean  an officer  in charge of a public office-to decide  whether  an instrument  is  or is not "duly stamped" the law he  has  to apply  is  the  Indian  Stamp  Act  in  the  light  of   the appropriate  modifications  made by the  State  Legislature. So, when the Uttar Pradesh public officers had to decide  in the  present case whether the original mortgage deed was  or was  not "duly stamped" they had to examine for the  purpose the Indian Stamp Act as it stood after its amendment by  the Uttar  Pradesh  Legislature.   Section 3 of  the  Stamp  Act creates  a  liability for stamp duty.  Section 3  after  its amendment by the U. P. legislature stands thus :--               "3. Subject to the provisions of this Act  and               the  exemptions contained in Schedule  1,  the               following instruments shall be chargeable with               duty of the amount indicated in that  Schedule               as  the  proper duty  therefor,  respectively,               that is to say :-               (a)   every instrument mentioned in that sche-               dule   which,  not  having   been   previously               executed  by  any person, is executed  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

             States on or after the first day of July,               (b)   every   bill   of   exchange    (payable               otherwise  than on demand) or promissory  note               drawn  or made of the States on or after  that               day  and  aceepted or paid, or  presented  for               acceptance or payment or endorsed, transferred               or otherwise negotiated, in the States; and.               (c)   every  instrument (other than a bill  of               exchange,  or  promissory note)  mentioned  in               that Schedule which, not, having been               542               previously executed by any person, is executed               out  of  the  States on  or  after  that  day,               relates  to  any property situate, or  to  any               matter  or  thing done or to be done,  in  the               States and is received in the States Provided  that,  except as otherwise expressly  provided  in this Act, and notwithstanding anything contained in  clauses (a), (b) and (c) of this section or in Schedule 1 or I-A the following  instruments  shall  subject  to  the   exemptions contained in Schedule I-A or I-B be chargeable with duty  of the  amount indicated in Schedule I-A or I-B as  the  proper duty therefor respectively, that is to say- (aa) every instrument mentioned in Schedule I-A or I-B which not  having  been  previously executed  by  any  person  was executed in Uttar Pradesh-               (i)   in the case of instruments mentioned  in               Schedule I-A on or after the date on which the               U.  P. Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1948, came  into               force, and               (ii)in the case of instruments mentioned  in               Schedule  I-B oil or after the date  on  which               the  U. P. Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1952,  comes               into force.               (bb) every instrument mentioned in Schedule I-               A  or  I-B which not  having  been  previously               executed  by any person, was executed  out  of               Uttar Pradesh-               (i)   in the case of instruments mentioned  in               Schedule  I-A, on or after the date  on  which               the  U. P. Stamp (Amendment) Act,  1948,  came               into force, and                                    543               (ii)in the case of instruments mentioned  in               Schedule  I-B on or after the date the  U.  P.               Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1952 comes into  force,               and  relates to any property situated,  or  to               any  matter  or thing done or to  be  done  in               Uttar   Pradesh  and  is  received  in   Uttar               Pradesh:               Provided also that no duty shall be chargeable               in respect of-               (1)   any  instrument  executed,  by,  or   on               behalf of, or in favour of, the Government  in               cases  where,  but  for  this  exemption,  the               Government  would  be liable to pay  the  duty               chargeable in respect of such instrument ;               (2)   any instrument for the sale, transfer or               other disposition, either absolutely or by way               of  mortgage  or  otherwise, of  any  ship  or               vessel,  or  any  part,  interest,  share   or               property   of  or  in  any  ship   or   vessel               registered  under the Merchant  Shipping  Act,               1894,  or  under  Art.  XIX of  1838,  or  the               Indian Registration of Ships Act, 1841, (X  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

             1841), as amended by subsequent Acts." Another important change in the legal position was  effected by  framing rules under the Act.  While s. 74  empowers  the State  Government  to  make rules relating to  the  sale  of stamps,  s.  75 empowers the Government  generally  to  make rules  "to  carry out generally the purposes  of  the  Act." Section 76 provides that all rules made under the Act  shall be published in the official gazette and on such publication shall  have effect as if enacted by the  Act.  Of the  rules framed  by the Uttar, Pradesh Government it is necessary  to consider in the present case Rule 3 which is in these  words :-               "3. Except as otherwise provided by the Stamp               544               Act or by these rules-               (i)   all duties with which any instrument  is               chargeable  shall  be paid, and  such  payment               shall  be  indicated on  such  instrument,  by               means  of stamp issued by the  Government  for               the purposes of the Act, and               (ii)  a  stamp which by any word or  words  on               the  face of it is appropriated to any  parti-               cular kind of instrument shall not be used for               an instrument of any other kind.               (2)   There  shall be two kinds of stamps  for               indicating  the  payment of  duty  with  which               instruments are chargeable namely;               (a)   impressed  stamps overprinted  with  the               words "Uttar Pradesh" or the           letters               "U. P.", and               (b)   adhesive stamps overprinted with letters               "U. P. ";               Provided  that  the payment of stamp  duty  on               instruments,  executed in any part of  British               India other than Uttar Pradesh and governed by               S.  19-A  of the said Act, as amended  in  its               application  to  the  Uttar  Pradesh,  may  be               indicated by such stamps as may be  prescribed               for use in that part to the extent of the duty               payable  there,  the additional duty,  if  any               chargeable in the Uttar Pradesh being paid  by               means of stamps prescribed in this rule.  Sub-               rule  (2) of this rule shall take effect  from               1st April, 1942               Provided   further  that  all  impressed   and               adhesive stamps for indicating the payment of                545               duty with which instruments are chargeable and               which  are  not overprinted  with’  the  words               "Uttar Pradesh" or "U.P." respectively,  shall               be consumed or exchanged at the treasuries  in               Uttar   Pradesh,   provided  that   they   are               undamaged  and  unspoiled,  with   overprinted               stamps  of  the  name  and  denomination   and               description  before  1st  April,  1942,  after               which  date the use or exchange  of  impressed               and adhesive stamps not so overprinted,  shall               not  be  permissible,  except  to  the  extent               indicated in the first proviso." The  effect  of s. 76 already mentioned above is  that  this rule  operates  as  a part of the stamp  Act.   In  deciding whether  the  instrument had been duly stamped  or  not  the public  officer had to consider not only the  provisions  of the Act but also the provisions of the rules.  The  position that  confronted the officers may be summarised  thus.   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

document had been executed in Uttar Pradesh.  So, it  became liable to pay duty under s. 3 (aa) of the Act as amended  in Uttar Pradesh.  Rule 3 required that the liability had to be discharged by using stamps overprinted with the words "Uttar Pradesh" or "U.  P.". The instrument did in fact bear stamps overprinted  with the words "’West Bengal" and not with  the words  Uttar  Pradesh" or "U.  P.". The public  officer  was therefore  bound  to hold that it had not  been  stamped  in accordance with the law in force in Uttar Pradesh. On  behalf  of the petitioner it is urged that even  so  the officer should have held that the document was duly stamped. Reliance is placed for this contention on the definition  of the  words "’duly stamped" in s. (2) (ii) of the  Act.   The definition runs thus               "duly  stamped"  as applied to  an  instrument               means that the instrument bears an adhesive               546               or impressed stamp of not less than the proper               amount and that such stamp has been affixed or               usedin accordance with the law for the timebeing               in force in India." Leavingout of consideration for the present, the questionof what should be the proper amount of the stamp..it      is necessary  to consider whether when the officer  found  that the  stamp had not been affixed or used "in accordance  with the law for the time being in force in Uttar Pradesh. he was entitled to say also that the stamp had not been affixed  or used in accordance with the law for the time being in  force in  "India".  It is pointed out that like the Uttar  Pradesh legislature  the  Bengal legislature had  also  amended  the stamp  law and framed its own rules.  The amendment of s.  3 in Bengal was by the addition of a proviso in these words :-               "Provided that, except as otherwise  expressly               provided  in  this  Act,  and  notwithstanding               anything  contained in cl. (a), (b) or (c)  of               this  section  or in Schedule  1,  the  amount               indicated  in Schedule I-A to this Act  shall,               subject  to the exemptions contained  in  that               Schedule,  be the duty chargeable  under  this               Act on the following instruments, mentioned in               clauses  (aa) and (bb) of this proviso as  the               proper duty therefor respectively,               (aa)  every instrument, mentioned in  Schedule               I-A   as  chargeable  with  duty  under   that               Schedule,  which, not having  been  previously               executed by any person, is executed in  Bengal               on or after the first day of April, 1922; and               (bb) every instrument mentioned in Schedule 1-               A,   as  chargeable  with  duty   under   that               Schedule,  which, not having  been  previously               executed by any person, is executed out of                547               Bengal  on  or after the first day  of  April,               1922, and relates to any property situated, or               to  any matter or thing done or to be done  in               Bengal and is received in Bengal." The  Bengal Government also framed rules under s.  76  which were  duly published in the Gazette and on such  publication became  part of the Act.  Rule 3 of these rules, as  it  now stands requires that the duty payable must be paid by  means of  stamps  overprinted with the words "’West  Bengal."  The instrument in the present case is mentioned in Schedule  I-A of  the  Stamp  Act as in force in West  Bengal  and  though executed out of West Bengal it relates to property  situated in  West  Bengal and was for the  purposes  of  registration

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

received in West Bengal.  It was therefore chargeable  under s. 3 (bb) of the Stamp Act as in force in Bengal.  This duty was paid by stamps overprinted with the words "West  Bengal" in accordance with the stamp rules in force in West  Bengal. On  behalf of the petitioner it is urged that the stamp  law in force in West Bengal was as much a law in force in  India as  the  stamp Law in Uttar Pradesh is the law in  force  in India.  It is argued that in deciding whether an  instrument is "duly stamped" within the meaning of the Stamp Act it was necessary for the officer in Uttar Pradesh to ascertain  the law in other parts of India also in order to decide  whether or  not "stamp" has been affixed or used in accordance  with the law for the time being in force in India. It  is  next  urged  that when the  officer  finds  that  an instrument  has been stamped in accordance with the  law  in force  in West Bengal he is bound to hold that it  has  been stamped  in  accordance with the law for the time  being  in force in India and thus "duly stamped" within the meaning of the Stamp Act. 548 The problem is therefore reduced to this Where an officer in Uttar Pradesh finds that an instrument has not been  stamped in accordance with the law in force in Uttar Pradesh, how is he to proceed ?  It is easy to see that similar problems may arise  before  public officers of other  States.   Thus,  an officer  in  Bihar who has to decide  whether  a  particular instrument has been duly stamped, may find that it has  been stamped  in accordance with the law in force in  Madras  but not in accordance with the law in force in Bihar.  Should he hold  that  the instrument has been duly  stamped,  in  such circumstances? Primarily,  the  liability of an instrument  to  stamp  duty arises  on  execution.  Execution in India itself  made  the instrument liable to stamp duty under s.     3  (a)  as   it stood before the amendment.  Under s. 3 (c)execution   out of India, where the instrument relates to property  situated or any matter or thing done or to be done in India  together with  the  further fact that the instrument is  received  in India,  made  the  instrument  chargeable  with  duty.    In amending  to  Stamp  Act what the  State  legislatures  sub- stantially  did  was  to  treat  the  particular  State   as equivalent to India.  Thus, after the amendment by the  U.P. legislature  the  position in law is that  execution  of  an instrument  in  Uttar Pradesh is made the  primary  dutiable event and liability to stamp duty arises on such  execution. Apart from that, liability also arises where the  instrument though  executed  out of Uttar Pradesh relates  to  property situated or any matter or thing done or to be None in  Uttar Pradesh,  and  is  received in Uttar  Pradesh.   It  may  be mentioned  that  the changes in the law made  by  the  other State legislatures are exactly similar. It is clear that in many cases the only one liability, viz., the  liability  on  execution of the  document  will  arise. After  the amendment of the Act the liability can no  longer be said to arise generally in India  549 but must be held to arise in the particular State where  the instrument is executed.  It stands to reason that  liability having arisen in a particular State it cannot be held to  be discharged  in  accordance with the law in  force  in  India unless  it is discharged in accordance with the law  of  the State  where  it  arises.  In other words,  where  the  only liability of an instrument to stamp duty is the execution in Uttar  Pradesh it must bear stamps of the amount and of  the description as required by the law of Uttar Pradesh.  If the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

liability  of  the instrument is on execution in  Bihar.  it must  bear stamps of the amount and description required  by the  law in Bihar; and so in the case of every  other  State which  has  amended the Stamp law in the same manner  as  in Uttar  Pradesh.   In all these cases the instrument  can  be said  to  be  duly stamped only if it bears  stamps  of  the amount  and  description in accordance with the law  of  the State concerned the law including not only the Act but  also the rules framed under the Act.’ Some  complications  arise  in  the  cases  where  both  the liabilities arise-i.e., where the instrument is executed  in one  State  but  is related to property situated  in  or  to -things done or to be done in another State and is  received in the second State.  In these cases the liability to  stamp duty arises first under the stamp law of the first State  on account of, the execution in that State; a second  liability arises under the law of the second State when the instrument is received in that second State. How  is  the  liability  to be discharged ?  Has  it  to  be discharged in accordance with the law in force in the  State where execution takes place or in accordance with the law in force  in the State where the second dutiable  event,  viz., the  receipt  in the second State occurred ?  Obviously,  an officer  of the first State may reasonably think that it  is the law of his State which must prevail 550 and  so even if the document has been stamped in  accordance with the law of the other State he may ignore that  stamping as not done in accordance with the law in India and  proceed to  demand that it must bear stamps in accordance  with  the law  of his State.  It was to avoid the hardships  that  may conceivably   result   from  such  a  situation   that   the legislatures  of  different States enacted s. 19  A  of  the Stamp Act.  This section of the Uttar Pradesh Act runs thus               "19A.    Where  any  instrument   has   become               chargeable  in  any part of the  States  other               than  the Uttar Pradesh with duty  under  this               Act or under any other law for the time  being               in  force  in  any  part  of  the  States  and               thereafter  becomes, chargeable with a  higher               rate of duty in the Uttar Pradesh under clause               (bb) of the first proviso to section 3, then,               (i)notwithstanding  anything  contained  in               the  first proviso to section 3 the amount  of               ditty  chargeable on such instrument shall  be               the amount chargeable on it under Schedule  1-               A,  or Schedule 1-B, less the amount of  duty,               if any, already paid on it in the States ; and               (ii)in  addition  to  the  stamps,  if  any,               already affixed thereto, such instrument shall               be  stamped with the stamps necessary for  the               payment of the amount of duty chargeable on it               under  (1) in the same manner and at the  same               time  and by the same persons as  though  such               instrument where an instrument received in the               States for the first time at the time when  it               becomes chargeable with the higher duty." Therefore,  where the rate of duty in Uttar Pradesh  for  an instrument which becomes chargeable  551 for  stamp  duty as mentioned above,  (i.e.,  an  instrument executed  out  of  Uttar Pradesh and  relating  to  property situated  or  to any matter or thing done or to be  done  in Uttar  Pradesh) with a higher rate or duty in Uttar  Pradesh than in West Bengal, only the excess has to be paid in Uttar

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

Pradesh and it is only this excess which requires to be paid in  Uttar Pradesh stamps. (Vide Rule 3 of the Uttar  Pradesh Rules). Section  19-A in terms applies only to an  instrument  which after becoming chargeable in any State outside Uttar Pradesh becomes  chargeable in Uttar Pradesh with a higher  rate  of duty.  It seems to us, however, that where the rate of  duty in Uttar Pradesh is the same or even lower, no further  duty is  payable  on  such  an  instrument.   For,  it  would  be anomalous  and  unreasonable to hold  that  the  legislature intended that though where a higher rate is payable in Uttar Pradesh the excess need only be paid, the Uttar Pradesh rate should  be paid in full where what has already been paid  is the same or higher. The  result  of  this will be that if  an  instrument  after becoming  liable  to duty in one State  on  execution  there becomes  liable  to duty also in another  State  on  receipt there,  it must first be stamped in accordance with the  law of  the  first State and it will not require to  be  further stamped in accordance with the law of the second State  when the  rate  of that second State is the same or lower  ;  and where  the  rate  of the second State  is  higher,  it  will require  to be stamped only with the excess amount and  that in  accordance  with the law and the rules in force  in  the second State. The mortgage deed which is the subject-matter of the present petition was executed in Uttar Pradesh ’though it related to property situated in 552 West Bengal and was received in that State for registration. The first dutiable event was the execution, which took place in U. P.; the second dutiable event was the receipt in  West Bengal.   When it came before the officers of Uttar  Pradesh for  decision  whether  it  was duly  stamped  or  not,  the officers of Uttar Pradesh were bound to hold-for the reasons we  have discussed earlier-that the instrument was not  duly stamped  as it did not bear Uttar Pradesh stamps.  The  fact that the instrument had been stamped in accordance with  the law  of West Bengal could not justify a conclusion  that  it had  been  stamped in accordance with the law  in  force  in India.  The Officers of the State of U. P. therefore rightly held that the original mortgage deed was not duly stamped. The petitioners are not, therefore, entitled to any  relief. In the circumstances of the case, we order that the  parties will bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.  553