SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Del) 160

High Court Of Delhi
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Appellant
Versus
RAJ KUMAR AND COMPANY - Respondent
Election 130 of 1976
Decided On : 11/02/1976

Advocates Appeared:
ARUN MOHAN, R.B.DATAR, SANJAY AGARWAL

A sale certificate issued by a civil court is not an instrument of sale of immovable property within the meaning of Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17 (1) (xii) of the Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, no transfer duty is leviable on such a sale certificate.

Headnote:

STAMP DUTY - TRANSFER DUTY - SALE CERTIFICATE - NOT AN INSTRUMENT OF SALE - NOT COMPULSORILY REGISTRABLE - NO TRANSFER DUTY LEVIABLE - DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957, SECTIONS 147, 148, 152 - STAMP ACT, 1899, SECTIONS 27, 64 - REGISTRATION ACT, 1908, SECTION 17 (1) (XII), 89 (2) - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, ORDER 21, RULE 94.

Fact of the Case:

The auction-purchaser of a property in Delhi challenged the demand for transfer duty imposed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, in addition to the stamp duty payable under the Stamp Act, 1899.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the transfer duty levied by the Municipal Corporation under Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was not payable on a sale certificate issued under Order 21, Rule 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it was not an instrument of sale of immovable property within the meaning of the said section.

Issues: Whether the transfer duty levied by the Municipal Corporation under Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was payable on a sale certificate issued under Order 21, Rule 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer duty was not payable on the sale certificate because: * A sale certificate issued by a civil court is not an instrument of sale of immovable property within the meaning of Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. * A sale certificate issued by a civil court is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17 (1) (xii) of the Registration Act, 1908. * The Registry of the High Court cannot compel an auction purchaser to pay the transfer duty leviable under Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.

Final Decision: The court directed the Registry to issue the sale certificate to the auction-purchaser even if he chose not to pay the transfer duty at that stage.

M. S. JOSHI, J.

( 1 ) GIAN Chand Jain purchased property built on plot No. 95, Block No. 5-C, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, at a public auction held in execution of a decree for Rs. 57,000. 00 on 28th October, 1971 and the sale was confirmed by the High Court on 6th August, 1973. When he approached the Registry to ascertain the amount of non-judicial stamp to be furnished by him for the preparation of a sale-certificate he was told that he would have to pay in addition to the duty at the rate of 3 per cent under the Stamp Act, 1899, surcharge imposed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, at the rate of 5 per cent. This application has now been made by the auction-purchaser under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure submitting that when the sale is made under the orders of and confirmed by the Court the transfer is complete, it is not to be brought about by the certificate of sale and no transfer duty is as such payable in respect of the said certificate. In any case it is not the function of the Registry, it is further urged, to levy the aforesaid transfer duty and the sale certificate should be given to him on his providing stamps in accordance with the provisions of the Stamp Act.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation contends on the other hand that the duty on sale of immovable property is payable under Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act which provision is in the following terms :

"147. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Corporation shall levy a duty on transfers of immovable property situated within the limits of Delhi in accordance with the provisions hereafter in this section contained. (2) The said duty shall be levied (a) in the form of a surcharge on the duty imposed by the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as in force for the time being in the Union territory of Delhi, on every instrument of the description specified below, and (b) at such rate as may be determined by the Corporation not exceeding five per cent, on the amount specified below against such instruments : Description of Amount on which duty should be levied. Instrument (1) Sale of The amount or value of the consi immovable deration for the sale, as set forth in property, the instrument. * * * *"the rate referred to in clause (b) aforesaid has been fixed at 5 per cent vide Resolution No. 680 passed in the Adjourned Special Meeting of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 11th February, 1970.

( 3 ) SECTION 148 then provides that "on the introduction of the duty on transfer of property. . . . . .

(A) section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as in force in Delhi shall be read as if it specifically required the particulars to be set forth separately in respect of property situated within and without Delhi;

(B) section 64 of the said Act shall be read as if it referred to the Corporation as well as the Government. "

( 4 ) SECTION 27 of the Stamp Act stipulates setting forth in the instrument chargeable with ad valorem stamp duty, the consideration and all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability or the amount of duly with which it is chargeable. The amendment of this Section by Section 148 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act ensures detailing of the requisite particulars separately in respect of property situated within and without Delhi. Section 64 of the Stamp Act reads as under :

"64. Any person who, with intent to defraud the Government (a) execute any instrument in which all the facts and circumstances required by section 27 to be set forth in such instrument are not fully and truly set forth; or (b) being employed or concerned in or about the preparation of any instrument, neglects or omits fully and truly to set forth therein all such facts and circumstances; or (e) does any other act calculated to deprive the Government of any duty or penalty under this Act; shall be punishable with fine which may extend






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top