Richard Garth, C.J.
1. We think that the Board of Revenue, North-Western Provinces, have not taken a correct view of the provisions of the Stamp Act. Before we look at Section 15 to see what instruments under the head of 'receipts' are exempt from duty, we must first look to Scheduleii to see whether the instrument in question is by Section 4 Chargeable with duty. It could only be chargeable under Article 7 if it were 'a receipt or discharge given for or upon the payment of money in satisfaction of a debt.'
2. If, therefore, the Rs. 300 was paid in this instance by Mr. Robertson to Captain Cotton's account otherwise than in satisfaction of a debt, it would not be chargeable at all; and we find nothing in the facts stated or upon the instrument itself to show that it was paid in satisfaction of a debt.
3. But even assuming that it was so paid, we consider that the document in question was not a 'receipt or discharge' within the meaning of the Act, because it was not given to the party who paid the money.
4. In this instance, no receipt appears to have been given to the Commissioner of Stamps, and the document in question is nothing more than the ordinary intimation, which the Bank gives to its customer, that a certain sum has been paid in by the Commissioner of Stamps to his credit.
5. If the instrument in question were a receipt within the meaning of Article 7, then in a case where it would be proper for the Bank to give notice of a particular payment to several different people, each one of the notices so given would have to be stamped as a receipt.
6. It seems to us perfectly clear that this was never the intention of the Stamp Act; and for these reasons we are of opinion that the instrument in question is not chargeable with any stamp duty.