Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.KATJU, R.S.TRIPATHI
Syed Mahfooz Hussain
Versus
State of U.P.
C.M.W.P. 21344 of 2003
Decided On : 19 May 2003
C. M. W. P. 21344 Of 2003
STAMP ACT - Constitutional Validity of First Proviso to Section 56 (1-A) - 1899 - Section 56 (1-A)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Constitutional validity of the first proviso to Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which required depositing 1/3rd of the disputed amount before stay of recovery of stamp duty. The petitioner had transferred land and disputed the deficiency in stamp duty imposed by the authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found no merit in the petition, upheld the validity of the impugned provision, and dismissed the petition along with similar ones listed before it.
Issues: Constitutional validity of the first proviso to Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the requirement to deposit 1/3rd of the disputed amount before stay of recovery of stamp duty.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the impugned provision was within the legislative power of the State and that hardship or inconvenience cannot alter the clear meaning of the language employed by the Legislature. It emphasized that the law must be interpreted in its plain and literal sense, and the Court cannot supply a casus omissus or correct a deficiency in the Statute.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the first proviso to Section 56 (1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was dismissed, along with similar petitions, on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 56 (1-A) or under section 56 (1) in rare and exceptional cases.
( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
( 3 ) BY means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the Constitutional validity of the first proviso to Section 56 (1-A) of the indian STAMP ACT, 1899, which was inserted by the Indian Stamp (U. P. Second Amendment)Act, 2001 (U. P. Act No. 38 of 2001) copy of which is Annexure-II to the writ petition.
( 4 ) THE facts of this case are that by a sale deed dated 1-8-2001 Annexure-2 to the writ petition one Deepak Kumar transferred the land in question to the petitioner. The sub-Registrar, Karchhana, District allahabad made a reference to the District magistrate, Allahabad vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition stating that the Stamp duty on the document was Rs. 1,17,900/- but the petitioner had paid only Rs. 23,400/-hence the deficiency in the stamp duty was rs. 94,500/ -. The petitioner filed an objection dated 8-5-2002 before the respondent no. 2 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition alleging that there was no deficiency. The respondent No. 2 however, by order dated 30-11 -2002 Annexure-7 held that there was deficiency of Rs. 94,500/- which should be recovered as land revenue. Against that order the petitioner filed a revision under Section 56 (1) of the STAMP ACT, 1899 before the Commissioner, Allahabad with a Stay application. True copy of the Revision and the Stay application are Annexures-8 and 9 to the writ petition. However, the Commissioner, allahabad by order dated 25-3-2003 admitted the Revision and held that if petitioner deposits 1/3rd of the amount in question then the Stay application will be considered. True copy of the said order dated 25-3-2003 is Annexure-10 to the writ petition. It is evident that the said order has been passed in view of the impugned first proviso to Section 56 (1-A) of the STAMP ACT, 1899.
( 5 ) SECTION 56 (1-A) stated :
" (1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, any person including the Government aggrieved by an order of the Collector under chapter-IV, Chapter-V or under Clause (a)of the first proviso to Section 26 may, within sixty days from the date receipt of such order, prefer an appeal against such order to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, who shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard consider the case and pass such order thereon as he thinks just and proper and the order so passed shall be final : provided that no application for stay recovery of any disputed amount of stamp duty including interest thereon or penalty shall be entertained unless the applicant has furnished satisfactory proof of the payment of not less than one-third of such disputed amount : provided further that where the Chief controlling Revenue Authority passes an order for the stay of recovery of any stamp duty, interest thereon or penalty or for the stay of the operation of any order appealed against and such order results in the stay of recovery of any stamp duty, interest thereon or penalty, such stay order shall not remain in force for more than thirty days unless the appellant furnishes adequate security to the satisfaction of the Collector concerned for the payment of the outstanding amount. "
( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first proviso to the impugned Section 56 (1-A) has created undue hardship and is an unreasonable restriction and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
( 7 ) IN our opinion there is no merit in this petition.
( 8 ) IT may be mentioned that as held by a division Bench of this Court in M/s. Naveen gun House v. Union of India, 2003 (2) AWC 894 : (2003 All LJ 1512) stamp duty is a tax and the power to levy stamp duty is in the concurrent list of the Constitution i. e. Entry 44 of the List III of the VII Schedule. Hence the State Legislature has power to pass the impugned Act.
( 9 ) IS well settled principle of interpretation that hardship or inconvenience ca
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
