R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) FIRST petitioner is the son and second petitioner is the mother. First petitioner wants to gift his property (a residential site with a small building) valued at Rs. 6 lakhs to his mother (second petitioner ). He got a gift deed drafted and also obtained a certificate of clearance under Section 230-a of the income-tax Act, 1961, for making the gift. The petitioners approached the second respondent on 3-7-2000 with the intention of getting the gift deed registered and offered to pay stamp duty by demand draft and sought confirmation that the stamp duty payable will be under article 28 (b) of the schedule to the Karnataka stamp act. 1957 ('act' for short) which provides that where the donee is a member of the family of the donor, the stamp duty will be 2% of the market value where the market value is Rs. 50,000/- and above but less than Rs. 10 lakhs. According to the petitioners, the sub-registrar informed them that the stamp duty will have to be paid under article 28 (a) and not under article 28 (b ). Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have filed this petition for the following reliefs: (A) for striking down the explanation to sub-article (b) of article 28 of the schedule to the Act, as being violative of article 14 of the Constitution of india; (B) alternatively, a direction to first respondent to include mother and father of a donor in the explanation to sub-article (b) of article 28 of the schedule to the act.

( 2 ) ARTICLE 28 of the schedule to the act reads as follows :"gift-INSTRUMENT of. Not being a settlement (no. 48) or will or transfer (no. 52) (a) where the donee is not a family member of the donor. The same duty as a conveyance (article No. 20) for a market value equal to the market value of the property which is the subject- matter of gift. . . . . (b) where the donee is a member of the family of the donor: (i) where the market value is less than Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 500/ -. (ii) where the market value is Rs. 50,000/- and above but less than Rs. 10 lakhs-2% of the value (iii) and (iv ). . . . . . . Explanation. Family in relation to donor for this purpose means husband, wife, sons and daughters".

( 3 ) PETITIONERS contend that the mother being the nearest of relations, should always be treated as a member of the family of her son; that a gift by a son to a mother would fall under article 28 (b) but for the explanation which unreasonably restricts the family to husband, wife, sons and daughters; and excluding gifts in favour of other family members like father and mother, from the concessional duty under article 28 (b) amounts to hostile discrimination and the classification made by the definition of family in the explanation is not based on any intelligible differentia and there is no discernible nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Petitioners contend that if a gift from mother to son can fall under article 28 (b) there is no logic in denying such concession in regard to a gift by a son to the mother.

( 4 ) STAMP act is a fiscal legislation. In view of the inherent complexities of such legislation and having regard to the fact that augmentation of revenue is the main object of such fiscal legislation, courts have always recognised a larger discretion in the legislature in the matter of classification. Logic or reason are not of much avail in interpreting a taxing statute. In h. h. prince azam jha bahadur (dead) by l. rs v expenditure tax officer, hyderabad1, the Supreme Court was considering the definition of the word 'dependent' in Section 2 (g) of the expenditure tax Act, 1997. The relevant portion of the definition stated that 'dependent' meant where the assessee is an individual, his or her spouse or minor child and includes any person wholly or mainly dependant on the assessee for support and maintenance. Having regard to the use of the word 'and', the Supreme Court held that the definition has to be read in two parts: first part consisting of spouse or minor child; and second part in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document