Power Of Attorney Executed Outside India If Not Duly Stamped Within 3 Months Of Receipt In India Will Be Impounded & Charged Penalty: Andhra Pradesh HC

Brief Facts of the Case

The challenge in the writ petition was that the District Registrar, Vijayawada refused to receive the General Power of Attorney executed by the writ petitioner's sister who was resident of Canada in favour of writ petitioner authorizing him to act as her GPA to sell her residential property.

The ground for rejection of GPA was that it was executed, notarized and the same was received in India by 06.03.2020. But the GPA was presented on 21.12.2021 which was more than three months after the document was received in India for validation purpose. This was said to be in violation of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. As the document was presented after expiry of limitation period of three months as envisaged in Section 18 of Stamps Act, the GPA was refused.

The counsel for petitioner submitted that COVID lockdown was imposed throughout the country and therefore the petitioner could not move out. The Supreme Court in its suo-motu order had extended the period limitation for suits, appeals, applications or proceedings.

The Government Pleader argued that the Supreme Court order mainly applied to suits, appeals and other judicial proceedings which could not be filed due to COVID restrictions. But the case of the petitioner was not a judicial proceeding.

Consideration of the Court

The court noted that as per Section 3 of the Stamps Act and Article 48 in Schedule I of the Act, a power of attorney executed outside India and received in India relating to any property situated in India, it is excisable to stamp duty.

Section 18 of the Stamps Act states that every instrument chargeable with duty executed only out of India may be stamped within three months after it has been first received in India.

The petitioner admitted that the procedure envisaged in Section 18 of the Indian Stamp Act needed to be followed.

The court noted that the petitioner had not produced any relevant material to show that there were continuous lockdown orders imposed due to which he could not move out. Furthermore, the benefit of exclusion of the limitation was applicable to only proceedings instituted in courts or tribunals.

Relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Malaysian Airlines Systems BHD v. STIC Travels (P) Ltd., ­­­Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao held that the said authority could impound the instrument executed outside India but not duly stamped and collect the required stamp duty and penalty and validate the document.

The writ petition was allowed. The court also clarified that if the document like the Power of Attorney was executed outside India on Indian non-judicial stamp paper before or at the time of its execution, Section 18 of Stamps Act will have no application.

Case Title: Pedapudi Alfred Johnson Jeyakaran Jesudasan Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 51

Click Here To Read/Download Order