LexDISTT. REGISTRAR & COLLECTOR, HYDERABAD AND ANR. versus CANARA BANK ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·- DIS TT. REGISTRAR & COLLECTOR, HYDERABAD AND ANR. v. CANARA BANK ETC. NOVEMBER 1, 2004 [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. AND ASHOK BHAN, J.] Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Act, 1986 (Act 17 of 1986): Section 73--Constitutionality of Constitution of Jndia- Art.14. A B c Stamp duty-Evasion-Safeguarding the revenue of the state-Public documents or public records of private documents-Jn the custody of public officer-Not tendered in evidence nor produced before any public office- lnspection, impounding and levying with duty-Banks directed to remit deficit duty on the documents, retained in course of loan advancing D transactions, and to recover the same from the parties concerned-Held, amended provision confers unbridled power without any guidelines- Unreasonable, violative of Article 14 of the-Constitution-Hence ultra vi res. Constitution of India-Art. 21. Right to Privacy-Held, exists with respect to persons and not places. Scope-Confidentiality of bank documents-Held, State cannot have unrestricted access to inspect and seize banks records relating to a customer, without any reliable information prior to such inspection-Nature of banks-customer relationship. Interpretation of statutes: Fiscal legislation-Interpretation of -Held, to be construed strictly- No scope of equity or judiciousness. E F Remedial statutes and statutes enacted on demand of permanent public G policy-Held, to be interpreted liberally. Section 73 of the Indian Stamp Act in its application to the State of Andhra Pradesh was amended by the Andhra Pradesh Act, 1986 (Act 17 of 1986). The amended entirely substituted provision conferred power on the 833 I-I 834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A collector or any person authorized by him to inspect any public office and any registers, books, records etc. the custody of public officer and empowered the inspecting officers to seize and impound 'the deficitly stamped documents and impound the same during inspection or collect the deficit duty from the custodian and to recover the same from the parties concerned. Several writ petitions challenging the vires of the amended provision were filed before the B High Court The High Court found the impugned provision to be ultra vires of the constitution. Hence this appeal. The appellant contended that the amendments are directed towards safeguarding the revenue of the State and striking at the evil of stamp duty C evasion and, therefore, the validity of such reasonable legislation was not liable to be questioned as unconstitutional. The respondents contended that the impugned amendment was not constitutionally valid and as such ultra vires the Constitution of India. Further attack was on the ground of unreasonableness, inconsistency and excessive D delegation of powers and also on account of drastic powers having be.en conferred on executive authorities without laying down guidelines. It was also contended that the impugned provision interferes with the personal liberty of citizens inasmuch as it allows an intrusion into the privacy and property of the citizens. E Dismissing the appeal, the court HELD: I.I. Power to impound a document and to recover duty with or without penalty thereon has to be construed strictly and would be sustained only when falling within the four corners and letter of the law. This has been F the consistent view of the Courts. (846-CI Mussammat Jai Devi v. Gokal Chand, (1906) 7 PLR 428, Munshi Ram v. Harnam Singh, AIR (1934) Lahore 637(1) and L. Puran Chand, Proprietor, Dalhousie Dairy Farm v. Emperor, AIR (1942) Lahore 257, referred to. G 1.2. The right to privacy deals with 'persons and not places', the H documents or copies of documents of the customer which are in Bank, must continue to remain confidential vis-a-vis the person, even if they are no longer at the customer's house and have been voluntarily sent to a Bank. Therefore, unless there is some probable or reasonable cause or reasonable basis or material before the Collector for reaching an opinion that the documents in DISTT. REGISTRAR & COLLECTOR v. CANARA BANK 835 the possession of the Bank tend, to secure any duty or to prove or to lead to A the discovery of any fraud or omission in relation to any duty, the search or taking notes or extracts, therefore, cannot be valid. The above safeguards must necessarily be read into the provision relating to search and inspection and seizure
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.