The Manjeri Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its General Manager, Manjeri Vs. State of Kerala, Rep. by the Chief Secretary to the Government, Thiruvananthapuram and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
kerala stamp act 1959 - sections 30(b), 33(1) and 54(2), madras co-operative societies act 1932 – sections 30, 30(2)(a) and (b), kerala co-operative societies act 1969 - section 110(2), travancore cochin co-operative societies act 1951 – sections 35, 35(1) and (2), kerala revenue recovery act 1968, banking regulation act 1965, indian stamp act 1899 - writ petition – by the petitioner society - question arises for consideration is whether a sale deed executed by a member of a co-operative society in favour of the co-operative society of which he is a member, is eligible for remission of whole of the stamp duty payable on it under the kerala stamp act, 1959.the short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a sale deed executed by a member of a co-operative society in favour of the co-operative society of which he is a member, is eligible for remission of the whole of the stamp duty payable on it under the kerala stamp act, 1959. the brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2. the petitioner is a co-operative society. it was registered in the year 1937 under the madras co-operative societies act, 1932. with the enactment and coming into force of the kerala co-operative societies act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the act” for short) with effect from 15.5.1969, the madras co-operative societies act, 1932 and the travancore cochin co-operative societies act, 1951 stood repealed. however in clause.....

Judgment:

The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a sale deed executed by a member of a co-operative society in favour of the co-operative society of which he is a member, is eligible for remission of the whole of the stamp duty payable on it under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

2. The petitioner is a co-operative society. It was registered in the year 1937 under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932. With the enactment and coming into force of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) with effect from 15.5.1969, the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 and the Travancore Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 stood repealed. However in clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 110 of the Act it was stipulated that notwithstanding such repeal, any society existing in the State on the date of commencement of the Act which has been registered or deemed to be registered under any of the repealed Acts shall be deemed to be registered under the Act and the bye-laws of such society shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, continue in force until altered or rescinded. The petitioner society is therefore deemed to be a co-operative society registered under the Act. The petitioner society is classified as an urban co-operative bank, having regard to the principal object provided in its bye-laws. The term ‘urban co-operative bank’ is defined in section 2(ta) of the Act as follows:-

“2(ta) “Urban Co-operative Bank” means a society registered under this Act having its area of operation in the Urban areas and which undertakes banking business with the licence obtained from Reserve Bank of India.”

3. The Managing Committee of the petitioner society that met on 8.8.2009 resolved to purchase a parcel of land, 3 cents in extent, lying adjacent to the head office of the society for the purpose of putting up a building to house the record room, generator room, ATM counter, core banking centre and also to provide parking space for cars. The Managing Committee also resolved to request the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Malappuram for permission to purchase the property utilizing own funds of the society. Ext.P4 is a copy of the resolution adopted by the Managing Committee of the society on 8.8.2009 in that regard. Pursuant thereto, the General Manager of the petitioner society submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 31.8.2009 before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Malappuram seeking permission to purchase the property. By Ext.P7 order dated 24.3.2010, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (General), Malappuram granted permission to purchase the land subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein.

4. Shortly thereafter, the owner of the land executed the original of Ext.P8 sale deed dated 3.5.2010 conveying 2 cents of land for a sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- to the petitioner society. The sale deed was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, Manjeri on 3.5.2010. Ext.P8 sale deed contained a recital to the effect that as it is executed in connection with the business of the society, stamp duty is not paid thereon. The Sub Registrar, Manjeri, before whom the instrument was presented for registration, impounded it under section 33(1) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 and forwarded it to the District Registrar, Malappuram, as provided under section 37(2) thereof. By Ext.P10 order passed on 24.5.2010 the District Registrar held that stamp duty is payable on Ext.P8 sale deed and directed the petitioner society to remit the sum of Rs.96,000/- towards stamp duty and Rs.100/- towards penalty. The petitioner society was also informed that if the stamp duty and penalty are not paid, steps will be taken to recover it under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. Ext.P10 is under challenge in this writ petition, wherein the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

i) Declare that the action of respondents 3 and 4 in refusing to register Ext.P8 document is illegal, unauthorised and without authority of law by issuance of appropriate writ, direction or order.

ii) To call for the records leading to Ext.P10 and quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order.

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding respondents 3 and 4 to register Ext.P8 document of title within a time frame that may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

5. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P8 sale deed is one executed by a member of a co-operative society in favour of the co-operative society of which he is a member, that the land conveyed thereunder was purchased for the business of the society and therefore, on the terms of Ext.P1 notification issued by the State Government, the petitioner is entitled to remission of the entire stamp duty payable on the instrument. Relying on Ext.P3 letter dated 2.12.2009 sent by the District Registrar, Malappuram to the General Manager of the petitioner society it is contended that the District Registrar himself has in the said letter taken the stand that the petitioner society is entitled to remission of stamp duty in terms of Ext.P1 notification, even though it is an urban co-operative bank and therefore the District Registrar erred in taking a contrary stand in Ext.P10. Though the respondents have been served and they have entered appearance, they have not, till date, filed a counter affidavit in answer to the averments in the writ petition.

6. I heard Sri. M.P. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. G. Gopakumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended relying on paragraph 1(a) of Ext.P1 notification that as the petitioner society is a registered co-operative society and Ext.P8 sale deed is one executed by a member of the petitioner society in favour of the petitioner society and the document itself recites that it is executed for the business of the society, the petitioner is entitled to remission of the whole of the stamp duty payable on Ext.P8. Relying on Ext.P3 letter dated 2.12.2009 sent by the District Registrar to the General Manager of the petitioner society, the learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the District Registrar has in that letter conceded the fact that the petitioner society is eligible for remission of stamp duty as a co-operative society though it is an urban co-operative bank doing banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, 1965 and therefore the stand taken in Ext.P10 order cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also contended relying on Ext.P7 order passed by the Joint Registrar or Co-operative Societies (General), Malappuram, that the Joint Registrar had granted permission for purchase of the land and the grant of such permission will also establish the fact that the land was purchased for the business of the society. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader contended with reference to the stipulations in Ext.P1 notification that the business of the petitioner society is banking and therefore the mere fact that the sale deed is one executed by a member of the petitioner society in favour of the petitioner society of which he is a member, will not entitle the petitioner society to remission of stamp duty for the reason that the instrument was not executed in relation to the business of the petitioner society.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner society is entitled to remission of the whole of the stamp duty payable on Ext.P8 sale deed, having regard to the stipulations in paragraph 1(a) of Ext.P1 notification. Ext.P1 notification was issued by the Government on 8.10.1960 before the Act was enacted and brought into force, in exercise of the power conferred on it under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 35 of the Travancore Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 and sub-sections 2(a) and 2(b) of section 30 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932.

8. Section 35 of the Travancore Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 reads as follows:-

“35. The Government, by notification in the Gazette, may in the case of any society or class of societies, remit –

(1) the stamp duty with which, under any law for the time being in force, instruments executed in favour of or by or on behalf of a society or by an officer or member and relating to the business of such society or any class of such instruments, or awards of the Registrar or Arbitrators under this Act are respectively chargeable;

(2) any fee payable under the law of Registration or of court fees for the time being in force; and

(3) any tax due to the Government or to any local authority.”

Section 30 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 reads as follows:-

“30.(1) The Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette may, in the case of any registered society or class of registered societies, remit the income-tax payable in respect of the profits of the society, or of the dividends or other payments received by the members of the society on account of profits.

(2) The Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, may in the case of any registered society or class of registered societies remit –

(a) the stamp duty with which, under any law for the time being in force, instruments executed by or on behalf of a registered society or by an officer or member and relating to the business of such society or any class of such instruments or decisions, awards or orders of the Registrar or arbitrators under this Act are respectively chargeable; and

(b) any fee payable under the law of registration for the time being in force.

In this sub-section “Government” in relation to stamp duties, means the Government which is the collecting Government, for the purposes of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and, save as aforesaid, means the Provincial Government.”

9. Sub-section (2)(a) of section 30 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 empowered the Government, to remit the stamp duty with which under any law for the time being in force, instruments executed by or on behalf of a registered society or by an officer or member and relating to the business of such society or any class of such instruments or decisions, awards or orders of the Registrar or Arbitrators under that Act are respectively chargeable. Sub-Section (2)(b) of section 30 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 empowered the Government to remit any fee payable under the law of registration for the time being in force. Sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Travancore Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 empowered the Government to remit the stamp duty payable on instruments executed in favour of or by or on behalf of a co-operative society, or by its officer or member and relating to the business of such society or any class of such instruments or awards of the Registrar or Arbitrator under the Travancore Cochin Co-operative Societies Act. Though under sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Travancore Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 the Government could have remitted the stamp duty payable on an instrument executed in favour of or by or on behalf of a co-operative society, when Ext.P1 notification was issued by the Government in exercise of the power conferred on it under the said provision of law and the enabling provisions in the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932, the Government granted remission of stamp duty only in respect of instruments executed by or on behalf of a registered co-operative society and not in respect of instruments executed in favour of a co-operative society.

10. The relevant portion of Ext.P1 notification reads as follows:-

“SRO.No.75/60:- In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 35 of the Travancore Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 (Act X of 1952) and by sub-section (2)(a) and (2)(b), Section 30 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act (VI of 1932) and in supersession of all notifications issued on the subject, the Government of Kerala direct in respect of Cooperative Societies registered in the State as follows:-

1. The stamp duty, registration fees and fees for encumbrance certificate payable under the Stamp Act and the Registration Act, in force in the State shall be remitted to the Co-operative Societies, in the following cases to the extent indicated in each case.

(a) The whole stamp duty with which under the Kerala Stamp Act 1959 (Act 17 of 1959) instruments executed by or on behalf of any registered Co-operative Society or instruments executed by any officer of such society or member in his own capacity or/and in the capacity of a Guardian of minor and relating to the business thereof and decisions, award or orders of the Registrar or the Arbitrators under the said Co-operative Societies Act.” (emphasis supplied)

11. Section 40 of the Act also contains a provision similar to section 35 of the Travancore Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 and section 30 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932. Section 40 of the Act is extracted below:

“40. Exemption from certain taxes, fees and duties.—(1) The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, remit in respect of any class of societies.—

(a) the stamp duty chargeable under the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (17 of 1959), in respect of any instrument executed by or on behalf of a society or by an officer or member thereof and relating to the business of such Society or any class of such instruments or in respect of any award or order made under the Act, in cases where, but for such remission the society, officer or member, as the case may be, would be liable to pay such stamp duty;

(b) any fee payable under any law for the time being in force relating to the registration of documents or court fees.

(2) The Government may, by notification in the Gazette, exempt any class of societies from taxes on –

(a) agricultural income;

(b) sale or purchase of goods; and

(c) professions, trades, callings and employments.

Section 40(1)(a) of the Act does not empower the Government to remit the stamp duty payable on any instrument executed in favour of a co-operative society. Section 40(1)(a) of the Act empowers the Government to remit the stamp duty only in respect of an instrument executed by or on behalf of a co-operative society or by an officer or member of a society and relating to the business of the society. Under paragraph 1(a) of Ext.P1 notification, remission of stamp duty can be claimed only in respect of two categories of instruments (1) instruments executed by or on behalf of a registered co-operative society; and (2) instruments executed by any officer of a co-operative society or its member either in his own capacity or as guardian of a minor, and relating to the business of the society. Remission of stamp duty is available also in respect of awards or orders of the Registrar or the Arbitrator made under the Act. In my opinion, in order to qualify for remission of stamp duty in the case of the second category of instruments, it is not enough that the instrument is one executed by a member of a co-operative society or its officer. In order to qualify for remission, the instrument must also relate to the business of the society.

12. A learned Single Judge of this Court considered the scope of paragraph 1(a) of Ext.P1 notification in Kerala State Co-operative Consumer Federation Ltd. v. Sub Registrar, 2007 (2) KLT 629. The Kerala State Co-operative Consumers Federation Limited purchased a parcel of land belonging to the Palakkad Wholesale Co-operative Consumer Stores Limited, which was under liquidation, in a public auction conducted by the Liquidator. The sale held by the Liquidator was confirmed by this Court on 20.1.1998. When the sale deed was presented for registration without payment of stamp duty taking advantage of Ext.P1 notification, the Sub Registrar impounded the document and forwarded it to the District Registrar, Palakkad, under section 33(1) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 for adjudication. The District Registrar referred the matter for the opinion of the Government in terms of section 54(2) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The Government held that remission of stamp duty is not available for the reason that the sale deed was not executed for the purpose of the business of the society. The Kerala State Co-operative Consumers Federation Limited thereupon moved this Court challenging that decision. One of the questions that arose for consideration was whether the sale deed in question was executed for the purpose of the business of the society. After noticing that under section 30(b) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the stamp duty payable on a conveyance has to be paid by the grantee, the learned single Judge held that as the Government does not dispute the fact that the purchase was for the business of the purchaser society, namely, the petitioner society, it is entitled to remission of the whole of the stamp duty payable on the instrument. The learned single Judge also held that a society, which is in the process of liquidation, does not cease to be a co-operative society and therefore, the sale deed in question, executed by the Liquidator on behalf of a registered co-operative society, is eligible for remission of the whole of the stamp duty payable on it. The learned Judge also held, interpreting paragraph 1(a) of Ext.P1 notification, that it consists of three parts; the first part deals with instruments executed by or on behalf of a registered co-operative society, the second part deals with instruments executed by any officer of such society/member of such society in his own capacity or/and as guardian of a minor and relating to the business of the society and the third part deals with documents executed pursuant to the decisions or orders of the Registrar or the Arbitrator under the Act. The claim of the Kerala State Co-operative Consumer Federation that it is entitled to remission of stamp duty was upheld.

13. The scope of paragraph 1(a) of Ext.P1 notification was considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in O.P.No.3052 of 2003. The petitioner therein was the Thodupuzha House construction Co-operative Society Limited. In execution of an award passed by the Arbitrator under section 69 of the Act, an item of immovable property mortgaged as security for the loan availed by a member of the said society was brought to sale and sold in public auction. For want of bidders the petitioner society itself purchased the property in auction. The sale was confirmed and a sale certificate was issued in favour of the decree holder society. When the sale certificate was presented for registration, the Sub Registrar, Thodupuzha, impounded the document and forwarded it to the District Registrar, who held that stamp duty is payable on the sale certificate. That was challenged in this Court relying on paragraph 1(a) of Ext.P1 notification. Repelling the challenge to the order passed by the District Registrar, the learned single Judge held that a sale under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules in execution of an award passed by the Arbitrator is not a sale by a member of the society to the society and therefore the notification granting remission of stamp duty has no application. In W.A.No.1280 of 2002 filed by the society, a Division Bench of this Court held that remission of stamp duty is not available as the instrument is not one executed by an officer of the society and relating to the business of the society. It was held that the sale certificate executed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies does not qualify for remission of stamp duty for the reason that he is not an officer of the society or its member. In coming to the said conclusion the Division Bench also relied on the stipulation in Ext.P1 notification that concessions granted cannot be extended to a document executed by a non-member in favour of a co-operative society or Land Mortgage Bank, even if presentation thereof is made by the President or any office bearer of such society or bank. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:-

“2. The Society granted a loan to one of the members of the Society on the strength of a mortgage of properties belonging to the said member. The member defaulted payment of the dues under the loan and, the therefore, the society filed an arbitration case under Section 69 of the Act. It ended in an award in favour of the Society for realisation of the loan amount with interest and the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Idukki, in execution of the award, brought the property of the member to sale as per the provisions of the Act. The property was put to sale in auction. However, there was no bidder for the same. In the circumstances, the Society itself bid the property in the auction and purchased the property. Pursuant to the same, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies executed Ext.P1 sale certificate in favour of the Society. The 1^st respondent, Sub Registrar, Karikode, Thodupuzha, demanded stamp duty on Ext.P1 as payable under the Kerala Stamp Act. The said demand was challenged by the Society in the writ petition. Their claim in the writ petitioner was based on Ext.P7 notification issued by the Government granting exemption from payment of stamp duty in stipulations detailed in Ext.P7, which details the circumstances under which stamp duty remission can be granted in respect of Co-operative Societies in the State. For our purpose, clause 1(a) of Ext.P7 is the relevant provision which reads as under:

“1(a) The whole stamp duty with which under the Kerala Stamp Act 1959 (Act 17 of 1959) instruments executed by or on behalf of any registered Co-operative Society or instruments executed by “any officer of such society or member in his own capacity or/and in the capacity of a Guardian of minor” and relating to the business thereof and decisions, award of orders of the Registrar of the Arbitrators under the said Co-operative Societies Act.”

Going by the said clause, remission of stamp duty is applicable only when the particular instrument is executed by any officer of such society or member, relating to the business of the society and decisions or awards or orders of the Registrar or the Arbitrators under the Act. This would essentially mean that only in respect of documents executed by any officer of the Society or member of the Society, the said clause is attracted. Further, we also note that under sub-clause (2) of Ext.P7, it provides thus:

Xx xx xx

The concession granted cannot be extended to a document exhibited (sic) by a non-member in favour of a co-operative society or Land Mortgage Bank, even if presentation thereof is made bay (sic) the President or any office bearer of such society or Bank.

Under this clause also, a concession as per Ext.P7 notification cannot be granted in respect of a document executed by a non-member in a co-operative society. Admittedly, in this case, Ext.P1 document was executed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies who is a non-member as coming within the said clause. Moreover, the Society has purchased the property as any third person who may bid in the auction and, therefore, it cannot be said that such purchase was relating to the business of the Society so as to bring Ext.P1 within the ambit of Ext.P7 notification. In view of the above provisions and especially in view of the fact that notifications granting exemption in respect of duties and taxes have to be construed strictly, we have no doubt in our mind that no remission is allowable in respect of the stamp duty payable on Ext.P1 document.

Therefore, we find no infirmity whatsoever in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed.”

14. The sale deed in the instant case is not one executed by or on behalf of a registered co-operative society. It is one executed by a member of the petitioner society in favour of the petitioner society. Therefore, the first limb of paragraph 1(a) of Ext.P1 notification has no application. Then the question is whether it falls under the second limb of paragraph 1(a) of Ext.P1 notification dealing with instruments executed by an officer of the society or its member in his own capacity or/and in the capacity off a guardian of a minor. Even then, in order to qualify for remission of stamp duty, on the terms of the second limb of paragraph 1(a) of the notification, the sale deed should be one executed in relation to the business of the society. In my opinion, in order to claim remission of stamp duty under the second limb of paragraph (1)(a) of Ext.P1 notification, it is not enough that the instrument is one executed by an officer of the society or its member, but the instrument should also relate to the business of the society. As stated earlier, the business of the petitioner society is banking. As noticed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1280 of 2004 unless the instrument is executed in relation to the business of the society, the society cannot claim remission of stamp duty relying on Ext.P1 notification. It is settled law that a notification granting exemption has to be construed strictly. Therefore, this Court cannot enlarge the categories of instruments for which remission of stamp duty is given. If the intention of the Government had been to grant remission of stamp duty in respect of instruments executed in favour of a co-operative society irrespective of the purpose for which the instrument is executed, the Government could have stated so in the notification. The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Travancore Cochin Co-operative Societies Act, 1951 empowered the Government to issue such a notification. However, that was not done. Under Ext.P1 notification all instruments executed by or on behalf of a co-operative society are entitled to remission of stamp duty. Instruments executed by an officer of a co-operative society or a member acting in his own capacity or as the guardian of a minor are also entitled to remission of stamp duty provided the document is one executed in relation to the business of the society. As the petitioner society is engaged in the business of banking, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that Ext.P8 document is one executed in relation to its business. If the intention of the government was to grant remission of stamp duty to all instruments executed in favour of co-operative societies with a view to enable co-operative societies to acquire immovable property without paying stamp duty, there was no reason to stipulate that the instrument should be one executed by a member in relation to its business. That could have been achieved by granting remission of stamp duty in all cases where the instrument is one executed in favour of a co-operative society. That apart, even for the second limb of paragraph 1(a) of Ext.P1 notification to apply, the instrument should be one executed by a member of the society either in his own capacity or as a guardian of a minor or by an officer of he society. Remission from stamp duty is certainly not available to an instrument executed by someone other than a member or officer of the society. In other words, in the event of a stranger to a co-operative society executing a deed of sale in favour of a co-operative society, remission of stamp duty cannot be granted. There is no provision in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act or the rules framed thereunder that a co-operative society can purchase immovable property only from its members. It is therefore, evident that unless the instrument is one executed in relation to the business of a society, remission of stamp duty cannot be claimed. The remission contemplated in the second limb of paragraph 1(a) of Ext.P1 notification cannot be claimed by a co-operative society which acquires land for purposes unrelated to its business. I am therefore, of the considered opinion that on the terms of Ext.P1 notification, the petitioner society is not entitled to remission of the stamp duty payable on Ext.P8 instrument.

15. That takes me to the question whether in view of Ext.P3 letter dated 20.4.2010, the District Registrar could have issued Ext.P10 order declining to grant the remission. A reading of Ext.P3 letter discloses that the only question considered there was whether in view of the fact that the petitioner society is carrying on banking business, it can be considered to be a co-operative society for the purpose of Ext.P1 notification. In that letter the District Registrar, Malappuram held that merely for the reason that the petitioner society is carrying on banking business, it does not cease to be a co-operative society and therefore, as a co-operative society it is eligible for remission of stamp duty. Nothing more was stated in Ext.P3. As a co-operative society the petitioner society is certainly eligible for remission of stamp duty on an instrument which satisfies the requirements of Ext.P1 notification and also for other benefits thereunder, but the remission or waiver of stamp duty and registration charges can only be in respect of the enumerated types of instruments. I therefore, find no merit in the contention that in view of Ext.P3 letter, Ext.P10 is liable to be quashed.

I accordingly hold that the challenge to Ext.P10 is without merit. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. I however, direct that notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition, the Sub Registrar shall register the instrument on the petitioner society remitting the stamp duty and fine levied as per Ext.P10.