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

2007 Supreme(Del) 562

AIR 2007 DELHI 214
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.
Vardhman Properties Ltd.
Versus
Collector of Stamps, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
W. P. No. 8161 of 2005
Decided On:- 13 -3 -2007.

Advocates Appeared:
Sanjay Goswami for the Petitioner; Jagmohan Sabharwal Sr. Counsel, Ms. Zubeda Begum for the Respondent.

The benefit of any doubt in the interpretation of legal provisions must go to the assessee, and penalties can only be imposed in specific circumstances as per the relevant statutes.

Headnote:

Indian Stamp Act - Notices issued under Section 40 - Article 35 of Schedule 1A - Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act - [Indian Stamp Act, Section 40; Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, Section 147]

Fact of the Case:

The petitions were against notices demanding deficient stamp duty and transfer duty along with penalties. The properties were conveyed through perpetual lease deeds, and the bone of contention was the interpretation of Article 35 of Schedule 1A to the Indian Stamp Act and the computation of transfer duty under Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that penalties on deficient stamp duty could not be imposed as the Collector had not impounded any instrument. It also ruled that transfer duty should be levied on 1/6th of the rent for the first 50 years of the lease. The court set aside the impugned notices and directed the re-working of transfer duty within eight weeks.

Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of Article 35 of Schedule 1A to the Indian Stamp Act and the computation of transfer duty under Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to impose penalty on deficient stamp duty can only be exercised when the Collector impounds an instrument. Transfer duty should be levied on 1/6th of the rent for the first 50 years of the lease. No penalty could be imposed in respect of the transfer duty under the DMC Act.

Final Decision: The impugned notices were set aside to the extent indicated, and the re-working of transfer duty was directed within eight weeks. No further stamp duty or penalty was chargeable from the petitioners.

ORDER :- All these petitions are directed against the notices issued under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as a "Stamp Act"). By virtue of these notices, deficient duty on account of stamp duty and transfer duty is being demanded from the petitioners along with a penalty equal to ten times of the deficient duty. The particulars of each of the cases would not be necessary for determining these petitions inasmuch as the questions are of a legal nature. It is sufficient to note that various properties were conveyed by virtue of registered perpetual lease deeds in favour of the petitioners on account of the fact that they were successful in the auctions held by the DDA/MCD. The Collector of Stamps in each of the cases had issued a certificate with regard to the appropriate stamp duty and transfer duty to be paid in respect of each of the leases. The petitioners in each of the cases made the payment as per the certificates given by the Collectors of various districts.

2. It appears that subsequently by an order dated 29-8-2004 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi, it was noted that several instances had come to the notice where the Collectors of Stamps of different districts had taken different views in the method of calculation of duty in respect of these perpetual leases. The bone of contention was the manner of interpretation of Article 35 of Schedule 1A to the Indian Stamp Act as applicable to Delhi. Another issue was that the transfer duty had also not been computed in the manner as indicated under Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as DMC Act). Consequently upon the said order dated 29-8-2004, the impugned notices were issued in February, 2005 or thereabouts to all the petitioners directing them to pay up the differences in the purported deficient duty as well as to pay penalty equal to ten times of the deficient duty under the Stamp Act and the DMC Act. Reference to one such notice would be sufficient for the purpose to disposing of these writ petitions. The notice issued in CW 8161/2005 is reproduced hereinbelow :

"Office of the Collector of Stamps : In a Room No. 6 D' Block : DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi F.No. SDM/Cos/Ch Pur/05/10/31 dt. 9-2-2005 Notice u/S. 40 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Whereas an instrument styled as Perpetual Lease executed by President of India in favour of Vardhman Prop for a consideration of Rs. 19111000/- was registered with Sub-Registrar VII(ND) on 3-6-2004. Whereas the duty chargeable on the instrument as per the prevailing rates prescribed by the Government works out to be Rs. 1330604/- details of which are follows :

Stamp Duty 1079772/- Transfer Duty 250832/- Total 1330604/-. Whereas upon security it has been noticed that only an amount of Rs. 1242215/- (Rupees twelve lac forty two thousand two hundred fifteen only) has been paid as duty. It is therefore clear that you have paid Rs. 88389 (Rupees eighty eight thousand three hundred eighty nine only) less than the duty chargeable under rules.

Whereas instrument has been impounded u/S. 33 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by the Sub-Registrar and a photocopy has been sent to COS (INA) for charging proper stamp duty along with penalty, if any.

Whereas you were directed by DDA to get the instrument stamped from the office of the Collector of Stamps DDA, INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi you have chosen to approach other COS who have not been vested with the powers to stamp these documents entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the govt. and caused a loss of Rs. 88389/- (Rupees eighty eight thousand three hundred eighty nine only) to the Govt. exchequer.

In view of the facts stated above you are hereby directed to makeup the deficient amount of duty as stated above together with a penalty amounting to Rs. 88,3890/- (Rupees eight lacs eighty three thousand eight hundred ninety only) a sum equal to ten times of the deficient duty, within fifteen days of the issue of this notice fai







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top