Court: High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side) | Date of Decision: 20 April 2026 Case Number: W.P.A. No. 19812 of 2022 Bench: The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao (Single Judge)
BACKGROUND
The petitioner, M/s. Emami Agrotech Limited, is a company that acquired certain copyright works by way of a Deed of Copyright Assignment dated 25 September 2014 from the Assignor, Rasoi Limited. The Deed of Assignment was executed in writing, signed by both assignor and assignee and was duly registered with the office of Respondent No. 2, being recorded as Book No. 1, CD Volume No. 1, pages 4517 to 4542, being No. 00335 for the year 2015. The registration was completed in terms of Rule 21 of the West Bengal Registration Rules, 1962 and a Certificate of Admissibility was issued by Respondent No. 2 on 17 January 2015 in terms of Rule 43 of the same Rules.
The subject matter of the Deed of Assignment comprised sixteen original artistic works of labels listed in Schedule 1 and twelve registered copyright works listed in Schedule 2. The total consideration recorded in the Deed was Rs. 9,00,00,000 (Rupees Nine Crores). At the time of registration, the market value of the property was accepted by the registering authority at Rs. 9,00,00,000 and stamp duty was assessed at Rs. 54,00,000 but was then exempted the Respondent No. 2 having granted the exemption as applicable to assignments of copyright with only Rs. 300 charged and paid at the time of registration.
Following registration, the petitioner filed an application in Form-XV of the Copyright Rules, 2013, before Respondent No. 4 on 29 April 2015, seeking registration of changes in the particulars of the registered copyrights. By a letter dated 20 May 2015, Respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner that the stamp duty paid in respect of the Deed of Assignment was insufficient. The petitioner replied that, as per the Indian Stamp Act, assignment of copyright was exempted from payment of stamp duty.
On 27 December 2017, Respondent No. 1 the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Range-III, Hooghly issued a notice to the petitioner in Form-VIII under Section 47A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, calling for objections relating to the determination of market value and fixing a personal hearing on 19 January 2018. The petitioner responded that no stamp duty was payable in view of Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act. Respondent No. 1, without considering this submission, directed the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs. 53,99,700, after adjusting the Rs. 300 already paid.
By an order dated 13 September 2018, Respondent No. 1 formally determined the market value at Rs. 9,00,00,000 the same value accepted at the time of registration and directed payment of stamp duty of Rs. 53,99,700. No reasons were assigned in that order for denying the exemption from stamp duty that had been granted at the time of registration. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner appealed to Respondent No. 3, the Commissioner, Burdwan Division, being the Appellate Authority under Section 47B of the Indian Stamp Act. By an order dated 10 March 2022 in Appeal Case No. 18 of 2018, signed on 16 June 2022, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. In doing so, Respondent No. 3 relied on an Audit Report of the Office of the Accountant General (E & RSA), West Bengal, which stated that since the assignment was not done “by entry” made under the Copyright Act, 1957, no exemption was allowable. Respondent No. 3 further held that the petitioner had failed to produce any certificate of registration of the brands and labels with the seal and signature of the relevant copyright office. Respondent No. 3 also noted the existence of another Deed of Assignment of copyright executed and registered between the same parties Document No. 311/2015 in respect of which full stamp duty had been paid and relied on this as an additional ground.
The petitioner thereupon filed the present writ petition under the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, challenging both the order dated 13 September 2018 passed by Respondent No. 1 and the appellate order dated 10 March 2022 passed by Respondent No. 3. During the course of the writ proceedings, the petitioner also filed a supplementary affidavit disclosing all certificates of registration of the copyright works. The Court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 31 March 2026.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
First, the Court was required to determine whether Respondent No. 1 had validly invoked the jurisdiction conferred by Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, in the facts and circumstances of the present case specifically, whether it was permissible for the authority under Section 47A to issue a notice under sub-section (5) of Section 47A in a case where, at the time of registration, the market value set forth in the Deed of Assignment had been accepted by the registering authority without dispute and the stamp duty had been expressly exempted.
Second, the Court was required to determine whether an assignment of copyright by a deed in writing, signed by the assignor and duly registered, constitutes an “assignment of copyright by entry made under the Copyright Act, 1957” within the meaning of the exemption provided in Article 23(a) of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, so as to entitle the petitioner to exemption from stamp duty.
Third, the Court was required to determine whether the Appellate Authority, Respondent No. 3, had correctly relied upon the Audit Report of the Accountant General and whether the finding that the petitioner had failed to produce certificates of registration of the brands and labels was justified, given that no notice had been issued by Respondent No. 3 to the petitioner to produce such certificates and the petitioner had disclosed the relevant details in the Deed of Assignment itself.
KEY HOLDINGS OF THE COURT
First, on the validity of the invocation of Section 47A by Respondent No. 1, the Court held that the notice issued under sub-section (5) of Section 47A was arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The Court observed that Respondent No. 1 had not referred to any prior notice under sub-section (2), nor to any reference under sub-section (3) of Section 47A. The notice dated 27 December 2017 contained no mention of any reference under sub-section (3). Sub-section (3) of Section 47A provides that where a concerned person does not make payment of stamp duty as required under sub-section (2) within the specified period, the registering authority shall refer the matter for determination of market value. In the present case, the market value had been assessed at Rs. 9,00,00,000 at the time of registration, the same value as declared in the Deed of Assignment and the registering authority had exempted stamp duty under Article 23 of Schedule IA. There was no dispute as to market value. Respondent No. 1 had, in the order dated 13 September 2018, ultimately accepted the same market value and yet directed payment of stamp duty, without providing any reasons for denying the exemption. The Court held that Respondent No. 1 arbitrarily issued the notice under sub-section (5) of Section 47A and that the order dated 13 September 2018 was accordingly vitiated by the absence of any reasons for withdrawing or overriding the exemption that had been validly granted at the time of registration.
Second, on the question of exemption from stamp duty under Article 23(a) of Schedule IA, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the exemption. The Court reasoned that under Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957, assignment of copyright is required to be in writing, signed by the assignor or his duly authorised agent and need not be made “by entry.” The Deed of Assignment executed between Rasoi Limited and the petitioner was in writing, was signed by both parties and was duly registered. The Court accepted the petitioner’s submission that the expression “by entry” in Article 23(a) of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act was a surplusage, traceable to the Indian Copyright Act of 1847 which dealt with assignment of copyright “by entry” that had been inadvertently retained after the Copyright Act, 1957 replaced the earlier enactment and which no longer reflected the requirements for a valid copyright assignment. The Court held that the petitioner had complied with the requirements of Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and was entitled to the exemption under Article 23(a) of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act.
Third, on the findings of Respondent No. 3 regarding the Audit Report and the non-production of copyright certificates, the Court held that both grounds were unsustainable. On the Audit Report, the Court held that the Accountant General had failed to consider the Deed of Assignment and the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957, read with Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act and accordingly set aside and quashed the observation made in the Audit Report dated 3 October 2016. On the finding of non-production of certificates, the Court found that Respondent No. 3 had not issued any notice to the petitioner requiring production of the certificates of registration with seal and signature of the copyright office and therefore could not make an adverse finding on that ground. The Court further found that the petitioner had in fact provided all the relevant details of labels and registered copyright works in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the Deed of Assignment, had not been contradicted by Respondent No. 1 in the order dated 13 September 2018 as to the correctness of the schedules, had filed the certificates in the present writ petition and had also filed a supplementary affidavit providing all certificates. The finding of Respondent No. 3 was accordingly held to be incorrect.
Finally, on the operative order, the Court set aside and quashed both the order dated 13 September 2018 passed by Respondent No. 1 and the appellate order dated 10 March 2022 in Appeal Case No. 18 of 2018, signed on 16 June 2022, passed by Respondent No. 3. WPA No. 19812 of 2022 was allowed in favour of the petitioner.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as amended in the State of West Bengal) governs the procedure to be followed when a registering officer has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of an instrument has not been truly set forth. Sub-section (1) empowers the registering officer, in the case of specified instruments including conveyances, to ascertain the market value and compute the proper stamp duty. Sub-section (2) requires a notice to be issued to the concerned person to pay the deficit amount. Sub-section (3) provides for a reference to a designated authority for determination of market value if the concerned person does not comply with the sub-section (2) notice. Sub-section (5) empowers the designated authority, on receipt of a reference under sub-section (3), to hold an enquiry, determine the market value and proper stamp duty and direct payment of any deficit. Sub-section (8) empowers the designated authority to act suo motu within five years from registration. The Court held that Respondent No. 1 had arbitrarily issued a notice under sub-section (5) without the procedural prerequisites of sub-sections (2) and (3) having been followed, particularly since the market value was never in dispute and the exemption had been granted at the time of registration.
Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (West Bengal) deals with the stamp duty on conveyances. It provides for ad valorem stamp duty calculated as a percentage of market value, with rates varying by location. The provision also sets out exemptions, the first of which Article 23(a) exempts “assignment of copyright by entry made under the Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957), section 18.” The Court held that the expression “by entry” was a surplusage derived from the 1847 legislation that no longer applied and that any assignment of copyright made in compliance with Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957 that is, in writing, signed by the assignor would qualify for the exemption under Article 23(a).
Section 18 of the Copyright Act, 1957 governs assignment of copyright. It provides that the owner of copyright in an existing work or the prospective owner of copyright in a future work, may assign the copyright either wholly or partially, generally or subject to limitations, for the whole term or part thereof. The Court reproduced and applied this provision to hold that the Deed of Assignment executed by Rasoi Limited in favour of the petitioner was a valid assignment of copyright.
Section 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957 governs the mode of assignment. Sub-section (1) provides that no assignment of copyright shall be valid unless it is in writing signed by the assignor or by his duly authorised agent. The Court applied this provision to hold that the Deed of Assignment being in writing, signed by the assignor and duly registered fully satisfied the statutory requirements for a valid assignment of copyright.
REASONING OF THE COURT
The Court’s reasoning proceeded along three interconnected lines.
On the procedural invalidity of the Section 47A notice, the Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Residents Welfare Association, Noida v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, which held that Section 47A can be invoked only where there is reason to believe that the market value has not been truly set forth in the instrument and that the authorities must be satisfied that there is an attempt at undervaluation. In the present case, the market value was never in dispute it was stated in the Deed as Rs. 9,00,00,000 and was accepted by the registering authority at exactly that figure. The entire basis for Respondent No. 1’s intervention was not undervaluation but the question of whether the stamp duty exemption was properly granted. No reference under sub-section (3) of Section 47A had preceded the notice under sub-section (5). Respondent No. 1’s order of 13 September 2018 determined the same market value that had been accepted in 2014 and directed payment of stamp duty, without providing any reasons for withdrawing the exemption that had been validly granted at registration. The Court found this to be wholly arbitrary.
On the exemption question, the Court accepted the petitioner’s argument tracing the legislative history of the expression “by entry” to the Indian Copyright Act, 1847, under which assignment of copyright was required to be made by entry in a statutory register. The Copyright Act, 1957, replaced this regime with the requirement, under Sections 18 and 19, of a written assignment signed by the assignor. The expression “by entry” in Article 23(a) of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act was therefore a relic of the earlier legislation that had not been updated when the Copyright Act, 1957, came into force. Treating the expression as surplusage in line with the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment in Bharati Dutta v. Saradindu Bast the Court held that any valid written assignment of copyright under Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957, would qualify for the exemption under Article 23(a). Since the Deed of Assignment was in writing, signed by the assignor and duly registered, the petitioner was entitled to the exemption.
On the findings of the Appellate Authority, the Court reasoned that the Accountant General’s report was based on a failure to read Article 23(a) alongside Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and was therefore not a sound basis for the appellate decision. On the question of copyright registration certificates, the Court found that due process required Respondent No. 3 to have issued a notice to the petitioner calling for those documents before making an adverse finding on that ground. No such notice was issued. Moreover, the petitioner had provided complete details of the copyright works in the schedules to the Deed of Assignment itself and Respondent No. 1’s order dated 13 September 2018 had not disputed the correctness of those schedules. The petitioner had also placed the certificates before the Court in the writ proceedings and by way of supplementary affidavit. In these circumstances, the finding of non-production was held to be incorrect and unsustainable.
DOCTRINAL SIGNIFICANCE
This judgment makes a focused contribution to the intersection of copyright law and stamp duty law in India, specifically in the State of West Bengal and its significance must be understood within those precise limits.
The Court’s holding that the expression “by entry” in Article 23(a) of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act is surplusage, traceable to the Indian Copyright Act of 1847 and no longer operative after the enactment of the Copyright Act, 1957, is an important interpretive ruling for practitioners and stamp authorities in West Bengal. It establishes that a written assignment of copyright, validly executed in accordance with Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957, is entitled to the stamp duty exemption under Article 23(a) without any additional requirement of a formal “entry” in any register. This reading prevents a literal construction of outdated statutory language from defeating a legislative exemption that was plainly intended to benefit valid copyright assignments.
The judgment also reinforces the principle, drawn from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Residents Welfare Association, Noida, that the machinery of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act is directed at genuine instances of undervaluation and cannot be deployed to revisit a transaction where the market value was accepted without dispute at the time of registration and the stamp duty exemption was validly granted. An order under Section 47A that determines the same market value that was accepted at registration, while providing no reasons for withdrawing the exemption, lacks the essential legal foundation for its validity.
The case must be read as confined to its specific facts: a West Bengal stamp duty dispute concerning a copyright assignment deed where the statutory exemption had been granted at the time of registration, the market value was undisputed and procedural requirements were not followed by the authorities below. The judgment does not purport to make any broader pronouncement on the scope of copyright assignments or the general conditions for stamp duty liability.
Articles Case Laws Copyright Article Landmark Judgements on Copyrights Landmark Judgements on Patents Landmark Judgements on Trademarks Patent Article Recent Judgements on Copyrights Recent Judgements on Patents Recent Judgements on Trademarks Trademark Article