2012 (3) Supreme 675
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(R.M. Lodha & H.L. Gokhale, JJ.)
State of M.P. — Appellant
versus
Rakesh Kohli & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 684 of 2004 with Civil Appeal No. 1270 of 2004
Decided on 11-05-2012
(1996) 3 SCC 709; (1995) 1 SCC 519
(b) Interpretation of statutes – Constitutional validity – If a legislative enactment is not discriminatory, it cannot be struck down as being arbitrary or irrational. (Para 16)
AIR 1955 SC 661 – Relied upon
(c) Interpretation of Statutes – Fiscal statutes – Hardship is not relevant in interpreting fiscal statutes – Similarly, equity has no place in interpreting fiscal statutes – An enactment is presumed to be constitutionally valid – In the field of taxation, the Legislature enjoys a greater latitude for classification. (Paras 17, 18, 25, 27 and 29)
AIR 1955 SC 661; AIR 1965 SC 1216; AIR 1968 SC 623; (2008) 4 SCC 720; AIR 1968 SC 623; (1979) 1 SCC 23; AIR 1958 SC 731; AIR 1959 SC 942; AIR 1960 SC 554; AIR 1951 SC 41; AIR 1951 SC 318; (2008) 2 SCC 254; 1962 Supp (2) SCR 589; AIR 1964 SC 370; (1980) 1 SCC 223; (1981) 4 SCC 675; (2003) 5 SCC 239 – Relied upon
AIR 1962 SC 123; (1999) 5 SCC 62; (1999) 5 SCC 725; (2000) 6 SCC 345; (2008) 2 SCC 254; (2010) 11 SCC 1; (2012) 1 SCC 656 – Relied upon impliedly
Facts of the case:
In this appeal judgment of a Division Bench of M.P. High Court declaring Clause (d), Article 45 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as unconstitutional is under challenge.
Finding of the Court:
Clause (d), Article 45 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is not ultra vires.
JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.-The only point for consideration here is, whether or not the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was justified in declaring Clause (d), Article 45 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, ‘1899 Act’) which was brought in by the Indian Stamp (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2002 (for short, ‘M.P. 2002 Act’) as unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. The above point arises in this way. Two writ petitions came to be filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In both writ petitions initially it was prayed that Clauses (f) and (f-1), Article 48, Schedule 1- A brought in the 1899 Act by Section 3 of the Indian Stamp (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1997 (for short, ‘M.P. 1997 Act’) be declared ultra vires. During the pendency of these petitions, the 1899 Act as applicable to Madhya Pradesh was further amended by the M.P. 2002 Act. The respondents, referred to as writ petitioners, amended their writ petitions and prayed that Clause (d), Article 45 of Schedule 1-A of the 1899 Act as substituted by M.P. 2002 Act be declared ultra vires. The writ petitioners set up the case that original Article 48 of the 1899 Act, Schedule 1-A prescribed stamp duty payable at Rs. 10/- if attorney was appointed for a single transaction. By M.P. 1997 Act, Article 48 Clause (f) was substituted by Clauses (f) and (f1). Clause (f-1) provided that where power of attorney was executed without consideration in favour of person who is not his or her spouse or children or mother or father and authorizes him to sell or transfer any immovable property, the stamp duty would be leviable as if the transaction is conveyance under Article 23. Explanation II inserted by M.P. 1997 Act provided that where under Clauses (f) and (f-1), duty had been paid on the power of attorney and a conveyance relating to that property was executed in pursuance of power of attorney between the executant of the power of attorney and the person in whose favour it was executed, the duty on conveyance should be the duty calculated on the market value of the property reduced by duty paid on the power of attorney. By M.P. 2002 Act, stamp duty relating to power of attorney has been prescribed in Article 45 of Schedule 1-A. Clause (d) thereof prescribes stamp duty at two per cent on the market value of the property which is subject matter of power of attorney when power of attorney is given without consideration to a person other than father, mother, wife or husband, son or daughter, brother or sister in relation to the executant and authorizing such person to sell immovable property situated in Madhya Pradesh. The writ petitioners pleaded, inter alia, that the distinction between an agent who was a blood relation and who was an outsider carved out in Article 45, Clause (d) was legally impermissible. The provision violates Article 14 of the Constitution as it has sought to create unreasonable classification.
3. The State of Madhya Pradesh stoutly defended the challenge to the above provisions and stated before the High Court that the matter of rate of stamp duty was solely in the domain of State Legislature and none of the provisions of the Constitution was offended by the above provisions.
4. The Division Bench of the High Court has accepted the constitutional challenge to Clause (d), Article 45 of Schedule 1-A brought in the 1899 Act by M.P. 2002 Act and held that the said provision was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench gave the following reasoning:
“11. As far as clauses (d) is concerned, it lays a postulate that postulate [sic] that when the power of authority is given without consideration to a person other than the father, mother, wife or husband, son or daughter, brother or sister in relation to the executant and authorizing such person to sell immovable property, 2% on the market value of the property is to be collected. Submission of Mr. Agrawal is that t
Balaji v. Income Tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle, Akola
State of A.P. v. Mcdowell and Co.
Ramesh Chand Bansal v. District Magistrate/Collector Ghaziabad
Veena Hasmukh Jain v. State of Maharashtra
Hanuman Vitamin Foods Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra
Karnataka Bank Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Laxmi Devi (Smt.)
Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President; Madras Bar Association
Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana
State of T.N. v. Ananthi Ammal
Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. R.SV. Sr. Arunachalam Chettiar
Income Tax Officer, Tuticorin v. T.S. Devinatha Nadar
Rt. Rev. Msgr. Mark Netto v. State of Kerala
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar
Hamdard Dawakhana v. The Union of India
Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India
The State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara
M/s. Steelworth Limited v. State of Assam
Gopal Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.