### Deed of Copyright Assignment in Writing and Signed Is Exempt from Stamp Duty Under Article 23.

The petitioner (Assignee) entered into a Deed of Copyright Assignment with M/s Rasoi Limited (Assignor) on September 25, 2014, for the transfer of 16 artistic works and 12 registered copyright works for a consideration of Rs. 9 Crores.

At the time of registration, the respondent authorities accepted the valuation but granted a stamp duty exemption under Article 23, Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, charging only a nominal fee of Rs. 300.

Subsequently, based on an audit objection from the Accountant General—which claimed exemption was only for assignments "by entry"—the respondent no. 1 (DIG of Registration) issued a notice in December 2017 to determine deficit stamp duty.

The respondent no. 1 and later the Appellate Authority (respondent no. 3) directed the petitioner to pay a deficit stamp duty of Rs. 53,99,700, alleging insufficient proof of registration and improper invocation of the exemption.

1. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in invoking Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act to demand deficit stamp duty after the deed had been registered and the valuation accepted.

2. Whether an assignment of copyright in writing under Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957, is entitled to stamp duty exemption under Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957, stipulate that a copyright assignment is valid if it is in writing and signed by the assignor.

Article 23, Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, provides a specific exemption from stamp duty for the "Assignment of copyright by entry made under the Copyright Act, 1957".

Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act (West Bengal Amendment) allows for the determination of market value only when the registering officer has reason to believe the property has been undervalued at the time of registration.

The doctrine in Residents Welfare Association Noida v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) emphasizes that Section 47A requires a finding of an "attempt of undervaluation".

The court found that at the time of registration in 2015, the authorities had accepted the market value of Rs. 9 Crores and granted the exemption.

The subsequent invocation of Section 47A(5) by the respondent no. 1 was deemed arbitrary because there was no dispute regarding the market value; the dispute was purely on the legal eligibility for exemption.

The court rejected the Accountant General’s interpretation that the exemption only applied to assignments "by entry," noting that the expression was a carry-over from the 1847 Act and must be read in harmony with the current Mode of Assignment under Section 19 of the 1957 Act, which requires a written, signed instrument.

The petitioner had provided sufficient evidence of registration through Schedule 1 and 2 of the Deed and supplementary affidavits, which the Appellate Authority failed to properly consider or verify through notice.

The court concluded that the authorities cannot invoke Section 47A to recover deficit duty where valuation is not in doubt and a valid statutory exemption applies, and accordingly quashed the orders dated September 13, 2018, and March 10, 2022.