Proceedings of the Legislative Council of the United Provinces. Friday 20th May 1938. Vol.III No. 10. Official Report

I do not deny within the limits of the law the right of the House to reduce taxation and even to throw out money bills or taxation bills but I would suggest to the House most respectfully that interference with bills of taxation may result in upsetting the whole of the financial arrangements made for the year and therefore as the learned Advocate General pointed out it is not by the language [...] I may make it again clear that I am not opposing the consideration of the Bill but the speech of the Hon'ble the Minister of Justice designed to pesuade us to agree to the Stamp Bill provoked me to make these remarks and I would ask the Hon'ble the Minister of Justice to reply to my questions before he expects us to support the passage of∎ the Bill. [...] I not remind the honourable members that in the beginning the Go ment practically decided to drop the two measures but subseque the circumstances changed and in the words of Rai Rajeshwa Sahib the ex-Minister of the olGovernment it was not a so tax but a sort of ransom that was extorted from the people of thi vince. [...] 1936 and to raise to a reasonable extent the rates of duty in the case of certain documents in such a manner that the increase in the financial incidence may not affect the poorer classes or prove excessive 'n the case of others." If I read the amendments that have been proposed in the Bill I submit the increase will also fall on the poor classes. [...] Now the question arises that this Stamp Act was passed originally as long ago as the year 1899 and we take it that the Bill that is before us raises the stamp duty to the very highest figure since the year 1899 that is to say up to the time of the introduction of this Bill the figure or the duty levied has never been so high as it is sought to be raised now.