Home  /  Indian Stamp Act  /  Section 65

Section 65: Penalty for refusal to give receipt

Indian Stamp Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1899
Section 64 All 78 Sections Schedule I (Arts 1–65) Section 66

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 65

Section 65 criminalizes the refusal or neglect to grant a duly stamped receipt upon receiving money or property exceeding the statutory threshold, or the fraudulent division of payments to evade stamp duty on receipts.

  • Refusal or Neglect to Give Stamped Receipt: Penalizes any person who, being legally bound under Section 30 to give a stamped receipt upon receiving money or debt satisfaction exceeding statutory limits (e.g. ₹20 or ₹500 depending on state thresholds), refuses or neglects to give one.
  • Fraudulent Division of Payment: Penalizes any person who, with intent to defraud the government of stamp duty, divides the amount paid into multiple smaller sums so as to evade the requirement of issuing a stamped receipt.
  • Punishment with Fine: The offender is punishable with a fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for each default.
  • Condition Precedent - Prior Demand by Payer: To establish an offence of 'refusal' under Section 65, the prosecution must prove that the payer made an express demand for a stamped receipt at the time of payment pursuant to Section 30.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Queen-Empress v. Khetter Mohan, (1900) ILR 27 Cal 324: The Calcutta High Court held that a prosecution under Section 65 cannot succeed unless it is established that the payer expressly demanded a receipt from the payee under Section 30 and the payee subsequently refused or neglected to provide one.
  • Emperor v. Ramaswamy, AIR 1940 Mad 655: The Madras High Court held that prosecution under Section 65 is non-cognizable and requires the statutory sanction of the Collector under Section 70; private complaints are barred.
  • In re: Subba Rao, AIR 1943 Mad 715: The High Court affirmed that intentional splitting of a debt payment to evade stamp duty under Section 65 requires proof of fraudulent intent; split receipts issued in ordinary commercial installments do not constitute an offence.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In commercial debt recovery disputes where a debtor claims cash repayments that the creditor disputes, use the absence of Section 65 complaints to test the debtor's credibility. If defending a business entity against Section 65 proceedings, verify whether the payer formally demanded a stamped receipt under Section 30 in writing. In the absence of a documented contemporaneous demand and Collector sanction under Section 70, move for discharge.

Section 64 All 78 Sections Schedule I (Arts 1–65) Section 66