Summary
Kerala co-operative societies claimed remission of stamp duty on sale deeds between themselves and their members under SRO No. 75/60. That order, issued under the repealed Travancore-Cochin and Madras Co-operative Societies Acts, remitted duty even on instruments a member executed in his own capacity. The societies argued it survived the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 through the saving clause in Section 110(2). The Supreme Court upheld the Full Bench. Section 110(2) saves notifications under the repealed Acts only 'so far as may be', that is, to the extent consistent with the new Act. Section 40(1)(a) allows remission only for instruments relating to the society's business, and only where the society, officer or member would otherwise be liable to pay duty. SRO 75/60 was therefore not saved to the extent of the inconsistency, and the appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether SRO No. 75/60, issued under the repealed Travancore-Cochin and Madras Co-operative Societies Acts, survives under Section 110(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 so as to remit stamp duty on sale deeds between societies and their members.
Provisions considered
- Section 110(2), Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969Notifications under the repealed Acts are saved and deemed issued under the 1969 Act only 'so far as may be', i.e. to the extent not inconsistent with it. (¶¶ 4.2, 7)
- Section 40(1)(a), Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969Remission is limited to instruments by or on behalf of a society, or by an officer or member, relating to the society's business, and only where, but for remission, the society, officer or member would be liable to pay the duty. (¶¶ 4.3, 8)
- Section 30, Kerala Stamp Act, 1959Relied on by the State for the submission that where the society is not liable to pay duty, no question of remission arises. (¶ 6.1)
Held
- A notification under a repealed Act is saved by Section 110(2) only to the extent it is consistent with the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. (¶ 7)
- Clause 1(a) of SRO 75/60, which extended remission to instruments executed by a member in his own capacity or as guardian of a minor and was not conditioned on liability to pay duty, is inconsistent with Section 40(1)(a) and is not saved to that extent. (¶ 8)
- The sale deeds in question were not instruments executed by or on behalf of a society, or by an officer or member, relating to the business of the society, and the appellants were not entitled to remission. (¶ 9)
Result
Appeals dismissed; the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court affirmed; no costs.