. . “NH“ l|ll\“\\\ll|N\\\\l\\ \N m1: Hm mum OF mum PRAGW “B“PUR‘ Lo mg W w @ ;3 & IhsProcessing Erlnanawagarh Societ Gaoparatlve Ltd., uarwalnand Maratng I) istrm‘h Ra 1mm. 4., 7y§3.§‘ r ‘££‘ Board of Revenue—Gum‘Chief Controllmng sanue Au‘cy, Gwalior. Collncixn‘iof $tamps- um-Deputy ‘eglstrar, Ramur Disict coopera’c ive E'Bank Ltd. ,R&ipur.¢ ’ tr z RTICLF 226/227 GGNETITUTIGN OF DIA. 0 gm N. I L i W m w §§§§Q§§§'r9 d y ki ,:; Rv tham R . $ IN m HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR, Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition No.40 of 1991 The Brindanawagarh Cooperative Marketing & Processing Society Ltd., Gariyaband verSUS Board of Revenue-cum-Chief Controiling Revenue Authority and others ORDER Post for 28—3‘2011 Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge \ K’ g7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition No.40 of 1991 Petitioner The Brindanawagarh Cooperative Marketing & Processing Society Ltd., Gariyaband versus Respondents Board of Revenue—cum-Chief Controliing Revenue Authority and others r Present: Shri A.K.Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.D.Vaswani, Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.2. Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India ORDER (Passed on 0W“ March, 201 1) In this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of lndia the petitioner/society has cailed in question the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 7-6-1990 (Annexure P-8) and the orders passed by the Coliector of Stamp on 29—6—1989 (Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6). By the orders Annexures P-4, P-5‘ and P—6, which have been affirmed by the Board of Revenue vide Annexure P-8, the Coliector of Stamp has directed the petitioner/society to deposit stamp duty together with penalty on the respective Deeds executed by the petitioner/society as Prabhar Lekh, i.e., Charge—Deed by treating them as Mortgage-Deed. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that the petitioner/society executed three Prabhar Lekh, i.e., Charge-Deeds on 11—11—1983, i(\ 88 2 20—11—1983 and 20-11-1983 vide Annexures P-1, P—2 and P-3 (Annexur‘e P-1 is also dated 20-11-1983) in favour of Raipur Kendriya Sahakari Adhikosh Maryadit, Raipur. On the last pages of these three Charge-Deeds, a demand promissory note for the value of the loan obtained by the petitioner/society has also been executed. 3. An audit objection was raised by the auditors on the nature of transaction executed in the said Deeds and thereafter the Collector of Stamp, Raipur issued show-cause notices to the petitioner/society as to why the petitioner/society be not required to pay stamp—duty on the said documents. According to the Collector of Stamp, the Deeds are, in fact, Mortgage—Deeds in terms. of Article 4O of the Stamp Act on which stamp-duty is payable. However, the petitioner/society has treated the said documents as Prabhar Lek/7, i.e., Charge-Deeds and has sought exemption from payment of stamp-duty. 4. While submitting its reply before the Collector of Stamp, the petitioner/society took shelter under the notification dated 27-4—1961 published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette Part—l dated 26-5—1961 claiming exemption from payment of stamp—duty and registration—fee. 5. in his orders Annexures P—4, P—‘5 and P-6, the Collector of Stamp, Raipur recorded a finding that the notifications under which the petitioner/society is claiming exemption have already been amended by subsequent notifications issued by the State ~ Government on 6—8-1978, 6-8-1980 and 24-10-1980, after which the documents in question ceased to enjoy exemption and othenNise tlsv I Q8 35w, 3 also the subject Deeds are, in fact‘ Deeds of Mortgage and not Deeds of Charge. The petitioner/society preferred three revisions before the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Camp at Raipur, which have been dismissed by the impugned common order Annexure P—8. 6. The Board of Revenue aiso recorded a finding that the notification dated 27-4-1961 has been superseded by the subsequent notification dated 24-10-1980 granting exemption to such documents which are valued not more than Rs.7,500/- and thus the present Deeds having valued more than Rs.7,500/- are not exempted from payment of stamp-duty. The Board of Revenue also affirmed the finding of the Collector of Stamp that the said Deeds are, in fact, Deeds of Mortgage. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have supported their respective cases in course of hearing. Both the learned counsel have produced before this Court the respective notifications s; under which the petitioner/society is claiming exemption and the respondents have rejected the petitioner‘s case of exemption. Notification dated 27-4-1961 published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette Part-l dated 26-5—1961 as well as the subsequent notification dated 24-10-1980 read thus: “1. mamaaifammtetmtawmatmat wWwwmwaglaawdrs— (1) Wthasmmwmawmw Wmmm,ewt$mwea€rf€rataw ®§qtt$ieml (WWfraaWaétsrWai \ 161*W.3Tl’\’. 29—§1——3T|'\’. 3:133 4—5—1962, HURT? “TFT 1 ET, g :lmlamw m& mmoammg AEAd g mwg Q. ANAolmomLwEIQQA. g. MTKTAwg ##43‘ £d A mgmmlwLma o E g £..§&g NW34g M: ammw §I§E§§E§$mw§waw§d§£mgw §$§§%§E%%@§% %%§Q§%_ av igjaig‘n‘gmaigmaw @Edimwgmwmwgg4$§§%§%%%g4l @V g%§%%§w§§§§w E§§§$ .AQV §%i%%§%%g §w§§£A§$§mw§mw wgmmgw: A»?mg Mag m3: g g‘ sowl§maz. ISEEIQ. £2. g ANLT$$ c N. g a. dmLaTaTgA muamm§181a8 I §%w%%&§‘m§%§\g $8$8l§l§.%. g NTKTaE $4mjvag§w ma‘§;§%amo&%§w§§ g § $g “R13mww i AQV §§%§§§. ammmwma N%A@V%§§§w$$§§ §E§$§~$Qd§$$w£iw§w§ aamw‘gmsqEmEwwwgwdgjdmi §§£%§%%§%§ g§%§%.w3m3l Ammv gm mam gem: gwéwd 41am?m3 an EV §A$V&mam§g%i§ ggg¢$$2§£ma / §§§§.uwoouoo@§u%.% / i&%mwi%w§§j§i§w % 91 5 W a% 311% W E? a??? W W W WWWmmWWmW W 31W m-W gm 31?? W aim w W$W®amw§rl (1m W, WW, W 24—10—1980, w 1716 1R W)” 8. On a reading of both the notifications, it would appear that initially cooperative societies were exempted from payment of stamp—duty by notification dated 27-4-1961, however, by the’ subsequent notification dated 24-10-1980, the earlier notification dated 274-1961 has been superseded and in the subsequent notification exemption has been allowed to a deed having valued not more than Rs.7,500/-. Thus, on bare reading of the notifications, it appears that the notification dated 27-4-1961 is not in existence having been superseded by the subsequent notification dated 24-10— 1980. 9. ln view of the above, the petitioner/society is not entitled for exemption from payment of stamp—duty as claimed by it and the orders passed by the Collector of Stamp and the Board of Revenue have been passed in accordance with law and no interference in this 1 petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of lndia can be made as the petitioner/sootety has failed to pomt out any illegality In the impugned orders. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. /J/ Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishrir//