Summary
In the case of M/s. Emami Agrotech Limited v. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Range III, Hooghly & Ors., the Calcutta High Court considered whether a deed assigning copyright in artistic works and labels was exempt from stamp duty under Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The court held that the assignment deed satisfied Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and was entitled to exemption. The court also found that Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act could not be used in the facts of the case, as there was no dispute on undervaluation and no reason was given for denying the exemption earlier granted.
Background
Copyright Assignment and Stamp Duty Dispute
Rasoi Limited assigned certain copyright works to Emami Agrotech Limited through a Deed of Copyright Assignment dated 25 September 2014. The deed covered original artistic works relating to labels and registered copyright works. It recorded a consideration of Rs. 9 crores, and was registered in January 2015. At the time of registration, the registering authority accepted the market value and granted exemption from stamp duty, with only Rs. 300 being paid.
After registration, Emami filed an application before the copyright authority for recording changes in the particulars of registered copyrights. The authority later raised an objection that the stamp duty paid on the deed was insufficient. Emami responded that assignment of copyright was exempt from stamp duty under Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
In December 2017, the registration authority issued a notice under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act for determination of market value and proper stamp duty. The authority then directed Emami to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs. 53,99,700 after adjusting the Rs. 300 already paid. The appellate authority upheld this demand, and Emami challenged the orders before the Calcutta High Court.
Questions Before the Court
The principal questions before the court were:
1. Whether a deed assigning copyright in artistic works and registered copyright works was exempt from stamp duty under Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
2. Whether the authorities could invoke Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act after registration when the market value stated in the deed had already been accepted and there was no allegation of undervaluation.
3. Whether compliance with Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957, was sufficient to treat the transaction as an assignment of copyright for the purpose of stamp duty exemption.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner argued that no stamp duty was payable on the Deed of Copyright Assignment because Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act exempted assignment of copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957.
- It was submitted that the assignment complied with Section 19 of the Copyright Act, as it was in writing and signed by the assignor or its authorised agent.
- The petitioner argued that Section 47A could be invoked only when the market value of the property was not truly set forth in the instrument, and there was no such dispute in the present case.
- The petitioner submitted that at the time of registration, the authority accepted the consideration of Rs. 9 crores, granted exemption, and registered the deed.
- It was argued that the expression “by entry” in Article 23 could not be used to deny exemption when the deed was otherwise a valid assignment under Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act.
State’s Arguments
- The State argued that the notice issued in December 2017 was not confined to determination of market value, and also related to determination of the correct stamp duty payable.
- It was submitted that the benefit of exemption under Article 23 depended on the satisfaction of the registering authority and the authority considering deficit stamp duty.
- The State contended that production of copyright registration certificates was necessary for the authority to be satisfied that exemption was available.
- It was argued that the authority had power under Section 47A, read with other provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, to review the transaction and determine proper stamp duty.
- The State also relied on the fact that another copyright assignment deed between the same parties had been registered with full stamp duty.
Court’s Analysis of Stamp Duty Exemption for Copyright Assignment
The court first looked at the nature of the transaction and the contents of the deed. The judgment recorded that Rasoi Limited had entered into a Deed of Assignment with Emami Biotech Limited on 25 September 2014 with respect to sixteen original artistic works of labels and twelve registered copyright works. The consideration was Rs. 9 crores. At the time of registration, the registering authority accepted this value and granted exemption from stamp duty, with only Rs. 300 being paid.
The court then referred to Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Article 23 deals with conveyance, but contains an exemption for assignment of copyright made under Section 18 of the Copyright Act, 1957. According to the court, the authorities had failed to properly consider this exemption along with the provisions of the Copyright Act.
The court stated that Section 18 of the Copyright Act deals with assignment of copyright, while Section 19 lays down the mode of assignment. Section 19 requires the assignment to be in writing and signed by the assignor or by the assignor’s authorised agent. In the facts before the court, the deed was in writing, signed by the assignor and assignee, and registered. Therefore, the transaction fulfilled the statutory requirements for a valid copyright assignment.
The court rejected the approach adopted on the basis of the Accountant General’s report. The report had proceeded on the footing that exemption was not available because the assignment was not done “by entry” made under the Copyright Act, 1957. The court found that this reasoning failed to consider the Deed of Assignment and Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act. It therefore set aside and quashed the observation made in the Accountant General’s report.
The court also noted that the deed itself disclosed schedules containing details of labels and registered copyright works. The authority had not denied the correctness of those schedules. The petitioner had also placed copyright registration certificates on record during the writ proceedings and through a supplementary affidavit. In the court’s view, the appellate authority’s finding that the petitioner had not produced certificates with seal and signature of the copyright office could not stand, especially when no notice had been issued to the petitioner calling upon it to produce such documents.
Court’s Analysis of Section 47A as a Supporting Issue
The court then considered the use of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act. Section 47A is meant to deal with instruments where the market value of the property has not been truly set forth. The court noted that the notice issued to the petitioner referred to Section 47A(5), but there was no mention of a reference under Section 47A(3), which is the basis for action under Section 47A(5).
The court said that this was not a case where the market value had been assessed and the petitioner had failed to pay the stamp duty demanded at the time of registration. On the contrary, the market value of Rs. 9 crores had been accepted at the time of registration itself, and the stamp duty exemption had been granted under Article 23 of Schedule IA.
The court also found that even after issuing notice, the authority accepted the same market value that had been accepted earlier. There was therefore no real dispute about undervaluation. The court relied on the principle that Section 47A could not be invoked merely because the authority later wished to revisit stamp duty, unless the statutory basis for undervaluation was satisfied.
The court further stated that the impugned order did not give reasons for denying the exemption that had earlier been granted. This absence of reasons became important because the issue was not fresh valuation, but withdrawal of a statutory exemption already applied at the time of registration.
Short Note on Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act
The judgment treated Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act as central to the exemption question. Section 18 permits the owner of copyright to assign the copyright wholly or partially, generally or subject to limitations, and for the full term or any part of the term. Section 19 prescribes the form of assignment and says that no assignment of copyright is valid unless it is in writing and signed by the assignor or by the assignor’s authorised agent.
In this case, the assignment deed was in writing, it identified the works, it was signed, and it was registered. The court therefore treated the deed as an assignment of copyright under the Copyright Act. Once that position was accepted, the exemption under Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act followed.
Findings
The findings of the Court are as follows:
- The Deed of Copyright Assignment complied with Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
- The assignment of copyright was entitled to exemption under Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
- The Accountant General’s observation that exemption was not available because the assignment was not made “by entry” was incorrect and was set aside.
- The authorities had accepted the market value of Rs. 9 crores at the time of registration and had granted exemption from stamp duty.
- Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act was wrongly invoked because there was no finding that the market value had not been truly set forth.
- The authority failed to give reasons for denying the exemption after having earlier accepted it.
- The finding that the petitioner had not submitted copyright registration certificates was not correct, as the deed contained schedules with details of labels and registered works, and the petitioner had produced documents in the writ proceedings.
- The order dated 13 September 2018 passed by the registering authority and the appellate order dated 10 March 2022, signed on 16 June 2022, were set aside and quashed.
- The writ petition was allowed.
Relevant Paras
The following paragraphs are relevant:
13. The Assignor, Rasoi Limited entered into a Deed of Assignment with the petitioner, namely, Emami Biotech Limited on 25th September, 2014 with respect to 16 original artistic works of the labels and 12 registered copyright works. In the Deed of Assignment, the total consideration is recorded as Rs. 9,00,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Crores only). At the time of registration of the said deed, there was no objection with respect to the value mentioned in the deed and accepted that the market value of the property is accessed at Rs. 9,00,00,000/-. The respondent no. 2 granted exemption of the stamp duty while registering the Deed of Assignment and stamp duty is paid only Rs.300/-.
16. In the order dated 13th September, 2018, the respondent no. 1 has determined the market value at Rs. 9,00,00,000/-. In the Deed of Assignment, the market value is recorded as Rs. 9,00,00,000/- and the same was accepted by the respondent no.2 at the time of registration of Deed of Assignment and stamp duty was determined at Rs. 54,00,000/- but stamp duty was exempted and charged only Rs. 300/-. In the order dated 13th September, 2018, there is no reasons assigned as to why the petitioner is required to pay stamp duty of Rs. 53,99,700/- though in the year 2014 when the deed was registered and the stamp duty was exempted.
In the present case, the respondent no. 1 has issued notice under sub-section (5) of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, to the petitioner. In the notice dated 27th December, 2017, there is no mention about any reference under sub-section (3) of Sec 47A. Sub-Section (3) provides that if 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 to such authority for determination of market value.
It is not the case of the respondents that the market value was assessed but the petitioner has not paid stamp duty. At the time of registration, market value was assessed at Rs.9,00,00,000/- which also mentioned in the Deed of Assignment, the registering authority exempted stamp duty as per the provision of Article 23, Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, thus the respondent no.1 has arbitrarily issued notice under sub-section (5) of Section 47A of Indian Stamp Act. Even after issuance of notice, he has accepted the same market value which was accepted at the time of registration of the Deed of Assignment. In the impugned order, the respondent no. 1 has not assigned any reason why the petitioner is not entitled for exemption.
Section 18 of the Copyright Act, 1957, deals with Assignment of Copyright and as per Section 19, no assignment of the copyright in any work shall be valid unless it is in writing, signed by the assignor or by his duly authorized agent.
In the case in hand, the Deed of Assignment is in writing and is signed by the assignor as well as assignee and is also registered. The registration is completed in terms of Rule 21 of the West Bengal Registration Rules, 1962 and Certificate of Admissibility is also provided by the respondent no. 2 on 17th January, 2015 in terms of Rule 43 of the said Rule.
24. Admittedly, there is an assignment of the copyright in writing which is signed by the assignor and also duly registered. Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, provided exemption of assignment of copyright by entry, made under the Copyright Act, 1957. The Accountant General failed to consider the Deed of Assignment as well as the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with Article 23 of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Thus, the observation made by the Accountant General in its report dated 3rd October, 2016, is set aside and quashed.
28. Considering the above, this Court finds that the respondents without considering that the petitioner has complied with the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and are entitled to get exemption under Article 23 of Schedule IA of Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
29. In view of the above impugned order dated 13th September, 2018, passed by respondent no.1 and order dated 10th March, 2022 in Appeal Case No. 18 of 2018, signed on 16th June, 2022, passed by the respondent no.3 are set aside and quashed.
Case Citation
M/s. Emami Agrotech Limited v. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Range III, Hooghly & Ors., W.P.A. No. 19812 of 2022, High Court at Calcutta, decided on 20 April 2026, available through Indian Kanoon, accessed on 30 May 2026.
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog based on user inputs and prompts.