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.

Definition of mortgage deed occurring in section 2(17) of Stamp Act, 1899. BHBFC vs A Mannan 41 DLR (AD) 143.

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

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.

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.

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

“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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

—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.