Sections 2(2), 18 & 35
|
Stamping instruments executed outside Bangladesh—When the SCC Judge
examined the power of attorney ordered refiling on validation it will be
deemed to have cured the defect of absence of Bangladesh stamps on the
power of attorney and also the breach of time limit for stamp. The holder
of the power of attorney must pay the prescribed penalty otherwise the
power of attorney will be inadmissible in evidence.
Anath Bandhu Guha & Sons Ltd vs Babu SS Halder 42 DLR (AD) 244.
|
Anath Bandhu Guha & Sons Ltd vs Babu SS Halder |
42 DLR (AD) 244 |
Section 2(17)
|
Definition of mortgage deed occurring in section 2(17) of Stamp Act, 1899.
BHBFC vs A Mannan 41 DLR (AD) 143.
|
BHBFC vs A Mannan |
41 DLR (AD) 143 |
Sections 2(9), 27, 31, 32, 48 and 70
|
The Stamp Act, 1899
Sections 2(9), 27, 31, 32, 48 and 70
The Registration Act
Section 60
On 03.04.2001 the Sub-Registrar, Chandgaon filed a report/complaint before
the District Collector and Deputy Commissioner, Chattogram alleging that
the value of the transferred land was Tk. 9,89,255/- and, thereby, showing
less value of Tk. 9,44,255 an amount of total Tk. 2,52,587.10 became due on
account of various fees and taxes (stamp duty, registration fees,
additional tax, Municipal tax, tax at source and vat). On the basis of the
said complaint Undervaluation Case No. 31 of 2001 was initiated by the
Collector, Chattogram and respondent No.3, concerned Assistant
Commissioner, issued final notice upon the petitioner on 21.09.2011 for
alleged violation of Section 27 of the Stamp Act and, thereby, directed the
petitioner to pay Tk. 2,52,587.10 as total costs on account of stamp duty
with additional taxes, registration fees, municipal tax, vat and penalty
within 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of the notice. ––The
petitioner submits that the Sub-Registrar, respondent No. 4 herein,
registered the sale deed in question after being satisfied with the
consideration money shown in the sale deed and after perusing the affidavit
wherein it has been clearly stated in clause-7 that the price of the land
has not been shown less. The sale deed has been registered according to the
law and the petitioner has received the sale deed and after registration
and delivery of the sale deed respondent No.4 has no legal authority to
initiate any case against the petitioner. The High Court Division without
considering the above aspect passed the impugned judgment which is liable
to be set aside.
Having examined and considered the above provisions of law coupled with the
facts and circumstances of the case, Appellate Division have no hasitation
to hold that, the Collector, Chattogram on the basis of a report of
concerned Sub-Registrar with regard to the valuation of the property in
question initiated the instant undervaluation case. ––The impugned
proceeding against the petitioner has been initiated by the Collector and
Deputy Commissioner, Chattogram within its jurisdiction, i.e. in view of
the relevant provision of Stamp Act,1899 and thus, there is neither
violation of the Registration Act nor the Stamp Act. .....Saifuzzaman
Chowdhury(Md.) =VS= Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs,
(Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 375]
....View Full Judgment
|
Saifuzzaman Chowdhury(Md.) =VS= Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs |
14 LM (AD) 375 |
Section 12
|
Cancellation of a stamp is a question of fact. Object of cancellation is to
prevent its use over again.
Cancellation of the adhesive stamps should be in a manner that it cannot be
used again. The adhesive stamps affixed in the impugned deed have writing
on it ‘cancelled’ on each of the stamps. It is contended that it does
not fulfill the requirement as indicated in section 13(3) of the Stamp
Act.
The question arises as to whether the effective cancellation of the stamps
contemplated in section 12 of the Stamp Act is a question of fact. The
object of effectively canceling stamps is to make it unfit for further use
in the ordinary course of business. The effectiveness of cancellation has
to be determined by reference to the question whether if it be removed from
the document it could be used again. This question must obviously be
considered with reference to facts of each particular case.
The words “so that it cannot be used again’ occurring in sub-clause
(l)(a) of section 12 of the Stamp Act means merely such cancellation as
will prevent the stamp being lawfully or conscientiously used again.
Now that the document has been produced before the authority as an evidence
of transfer and if the authority finds that the stamps do not show that
these were used before and act upon it, the party gets the desired object.
But if thereafter the stamp is stolen and used by any other person then it
would only bring that person within the mischief of sub-clause (3) of
section 12 the Stamp Act.
Jabed Ali Vs. Dr. Sultan Ahmed (1975) 27 DLR (SC) 78.
|
Jabed Ali Vs. Dr. Sultan Ahmed |
27 DLR (SC) 78 |
Section 13
|
Cancellation of a stamp is a question of fact. Object of cancellation is to
prevent its use over again.
Cancellation of the adhesive stamps should be in a manner that it cannot be
used again. The adhesive stamps affixed in the impugned deed have a writing
on it ‘cancelled’ on each of the stamp. It is contended that it does
not fulfill the requirement as indicated in section 13(3) of the Stamp
Act.
Jabed Ali Vs. Dr. Sultan Ahmed (1975) 27 DLR (SC) 78.
|
Jabed Ali Vs. Dr. Sultan Ahmed |
27 DLR (SC) 78 |
Section 18
|
The very act of revalidating or re-stamping the power of attorney is
defendant upon reciprocal arrangement. [Para-6]
Molay Behari Biswas Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh 5 BLT (AD)-109
|
Molay Behari Biswas Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh |
5 BLT (AD) 109 |
Section 18
|
“Proper Officer”—Under sub-rule(2) of Rule 12 of the Stamp Rules read
with section 18 of the Stamp Act, it is the dut of the “Proper Officer’
as defined in Rule 9 of the Stamp Rules to stamp the instrument in the
manner as described by Rule II of the said Rules. “Proper Officer”
within the meaning of Rule 9 are specified in the Appendix—A to the
Rules.
Messers Anath Bandhu Guha and Soits Ltd. through its attrorney Md. Sirqjul
Huq Vs- Babu Sudhangshu She khar Halder, 11 BLD (AD) 66
|
Messers Anath Bandhu Guha and Soits Ltd. through its attrorney Md. Sirqjul Huq Vs- Babu Sudhangshu She khar Halder, |
11 BLD (AD) 66 |
Section 35 and Art. 45
|
In the instant case the final decree was passed on 30.11.54 but the decree
was drawn and signed on 22.5.65. The decree could not be drawn and signed
earlier as the required stamp- paper was not put in. A decree in a
partition suit is an instrument of partition which is chargeable with stamp
duty under Article 45 of the Stamp Act. 1899, and unless it is duly stamped
the decree is not a4missible in evidence as provided in section 35 of the
Stamp Act.
Aminullah Bhuiyan Vs. Abdul Hafiz (1981)33 DLR (AD) 282.
|
Aminullah Bhuiyan Vs. Abdul Hafiz |
33 DLR (AD) 282 |
Section 35
|
A failure to comply with the stamp duty as provided under the Stamp Act may
entail penalty but the instrument cannot be thrown away for want of stamp
as inadmissible in evidence not being duly stamped. [Para-22]
Abdul Karim & Ors. Vs. Md Serajuddin Ahmed & Ors 7 BLT (AD)-160.
|
Abdul Karim & Ors. Vs. Md Serajuddin Ahmed & Ors |
7 BLT (AD) 160 |
Stamp Act
|
Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
Section-19 (1) and (2)
Section 63A of the Registration Act, 1908
Stamp Act, 1899
Evasion of registration fees and other duties for registering a deed of
sale does not come within the schedule offences of the Anti-Corruption
Commission Act, 2004:
With reference to the legal decision taken in the case of Sonali Jute Mills
Ltd Vs. ACC reported in 22 BLC (AD) 147, the submission of the learned
Advocate for the ACC is that sub-section(1) and (2) of section-19 have
given wide jurisdiction to the Commission to inquire into and investigate
any allegations whatsoever as covered in its schedule and in doing so, the
ACC may direct any authority, public or private to produce relevant
documents. But the allegation under the instant inquiry which is admittedly
initiated on the allegation as stated in the application dated 11.12.2018
(Annexure-N) filed by the Respondent No.05 with regard to taking possession
of RAJUK plot unlawfully creating forged documents and evasion of
registration fees and other duties for registering a deed of sale does not
come within the schedule offences of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act,
2004 rather it may come under the purview of Section 63A of the
Registration Act, 1908 and under the provision of Stamp Act, 1899 and thus
the said case law is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. It
appears from the annexures of the writ petition that the subsequent sale
between the petitioners and the Respondent No.4 was also held by a Court of
law pursuant to a decree of specific performance of contract and thus there
is no scope of taking possession of RAJUK plot unlawfully creating forged
documents and evasion of registration fees and stamp fees at all. …Md.
Atiqur Rahman & anr Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 70
....View Full Judgment
|
Md. Atiqur Rahman & anr Vs. Bangladesh & ors |
16 SCOB [2022] HCD 70 |
Art.40(b)
|
Respondent mortgaged his properties, as a security for obtaining loan to
the Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha—But so far as the Bank of CC
International is concerned it is a first security for which stamp-duty
under clause (b) of the Act is chargeable.
Chairman National Board of Revenue Vs. GMG Corpn. (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 263.
|
Chairman National Board of Revenue Vs. GMG Corpn. |
35 DLR (AD) 263 |
Art. 40 (c)
|
Mortgage-deed is a security in addition to the securities already
furnished, in favour of the same lender and in respect of the same loan.
Chairman, National Board of Revenue, Bangladesh Vs. M/s. GMG Corporation
Ltd. (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 262.
|
Chairman, National Board of Revenue, Bangladesh Vs. M/s. GMG Corporation Ltd. |
35 DLR (AD) 262 |
Article 45
|
—In the instant case the final decree was passed on 30.11.54 but the
decree was drawn and signed on 22.5.65. The decree could not be drawn and
signed earlier as the required stamp paper was not put in. A decree in a
partition Suit 1S an instrument of partition which is chargeable with stamp
duty under Article 45 of the Stamp Act, 1898, and unless it is duly stamped
the decree is not admissible if evidence as provided in section 35 of the
Stamp Act.
Aminullah Bhuiyan Vs Abdul Hajiz (1981) 33 DLR (AD) 282.
|
Aminullah Bhuiyan Vs Abdul Hajiz |
33 DLR (AD) 282 |