Back
2013 Supreme(All) 2951
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pankaj Mithal, J.
Sanjay Pratap Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondent
Writ - C No. - 70387 of 2013
Decided On : 19-12-2013
For the Petitioner: Sudhir Kuamr
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of stamp duty for a lease deed should consider the premium paid for obtaining the lease, in addition to the reserved rent, if the lease falls under category (c) of Article 35 to Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Headnote:
Stamp Duty - Lease Deed - The court upheld the determination of deficiency in stamp duty by taking into account the premium paid for obtaining the lease, as the lease deed fell under category (c) of Article 35 to Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner participated in an auction for leasing out shops, and was declared the successful highest bidder for shop No. 27. The lease deed was executed with a premium of Rs.11,10,000/- and a monthly rent of Rs.727/-. The authorities determined a deficiency in stamp duty by considering the premium amount, which was challenged in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lease deed fell under category (c) of Article 35 to Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and upheld the determination of deficiency in stamp duty by taking into account the premium paid for obtaining the lease. The court also reduced the penalty imposed by the authorities to 10% of the deficiency determined.
Issues: The main issue was whether the stamp duty should be determined by considering the premium amount paid for obtaining the lease, in addition to the reserved rent.
Ratio Decidendi: The lease deed fell under category (c) of Article 35 to Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as it was executed on a premium with reserved rent. Therefore, the deficiency in stamp duty was rightly determined by taking into account the premium paid for obtaining the lease.
Final Decision: The court upheld the determination of deficiency in stamp duty by taking into account the premium paid for obtaining the lease, and reduced the penalty imposed by the authorities to 10% of the deficiency determined.
Pankaj Mithal,J.: -
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner participated in the auction conducted by the Nagar Nigam, Aligarh for leasing out shops. In respect of shop No. 27 petitioner was declared to be a successful highest bidder on a premium of Rs.11,10,000/-. Accordingly, the said shop was leased out to the petitioner for a period of 30 years on a monthly rent of Rs.727/- per month. A lease deed was executed on 5.7.2007. Petitioner on the said lease deed paid stamp duty according to the lease rent only.
3. The Additional Collector (Administration) vide order dated 10.10.2012 determined the deficiency by taking into consideration the premium of Rs.11,10,000/- also. The order has been upheld by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), vide order dated 27.9.2013 passed in appeal arising there-from.
4. Both the above orders dated 27.9.2013 and 10.10.2012 have been impugned by the petitioner in this writ petition.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that stamp duty is payable only on the lease rent and therefore, the authorities below have erred in taken into consideration the premium amount of Rs.11,10,000/- in determining the deficiency in stamp duty.
6. A lease deed is chargeable to stamp duty under Article 35 of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
7. Article 35 of Schedule 1-B of the Act provides for three categories of the leases. In category (a) are leases where rent is fixed but there is no premium. In category (b) are the leases which are granted on premium but without reserving any rent whereas in category (c) are the leases which are granted for a premium in addition to rent reserved.
8. A plain reading of the lease deed in question reveals that it falls under category (c) of Article 35 to Schedule 1-B of the Act. The said lease deed has been executed on a premium of Rs.11,10,000/-/ with the reserved rent of Rs.727/- per month.
9. Accordingly, the lease deed is chargeable to stamp duty under Article 35 (c)(i) of Schedule 1-B of the Act for a consideration equal to the amount of the premium in addition to the duty which would have been payable on such lease if no premium had been paid.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the authorities below have not committed any error of law in determining the deficiency in stamp duty by taking into account the premium which has been paid by the petitioner for obtaining the lease of the shop in question.
11. A penalty of Rs.56483/- imposed by the authorities for the reason that deficiency has been determined in the payment of stamp duty without recording any reason cannot be sustained. The imposition of penalty under the facts and circumstances is apparently on higher side.
12. In view of above, it is considered just and proper to reduce the penalty to 10% of the deficiency determined while upholding the impugned orders in so far as they purport to determine the stamp duty. They stand modified with regard to penalty to the extent indicated above.
13. The writ petition is disposed of.
