On 17/01/06 11:21 -0800, Thaths wrote: > On 1/17/06, A. M. Merritt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/17/06, Devdas Bhagat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Basically, anything which requires the payment of small amounts of fees, > > > and a lot of paperwork/documentation. > > > > > > Stuff like legal agreements (of any kind), contracts, etc are > > > printed/typed on stamp paper and registered. The point of stamp paper is > > > that you pay a certain amount of money to get that stamp. > > So a contract isn't "official" unless it's on stamp paper? > > It sounds like a way for the guvmint to account for fee > > payment, and to extract money for "blessing" contracts > > and agreements of any kind. I can now see why it's a > > big deal to forge it. Thanks! > > Bingo! Stamp papers are a way for the government to earn money through > taxation of contracts / transactions. They ensure their revenue stream
I interpret it slightly differently. Registration is like depositing a copy of the contract with a trusted third party. The fees charged by the government are essentially for that. These fees vary depending on the value of the contract. > by insisting that contracts are only legal and abiding when they are > typed up and signed on a stamp paper. There is, of course, no way for For low value transactions, the cost of the stamp paper is the fee. For higher value transactions, the government does charge a registration fee. The paper is a way to get the fees in advance. > the government to know the language of the contract (on stamp paper > stationary) that parties are entering into and whether that contract > is legit and enforceable. The government gets around this pesky little > detail by insisting that the government will only consider the > legitimacy of contracts typed up on stamp paper. > That is the bad part of it, but then, this is a monopoly and it _will_ abuse its position and power. Devdas Bhagat
