Back
2014 Supreme(All) 3229
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
A to Z Associate - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Writ-C No. 50809 of 2014
Decided On : 22-09-2014
For the Appellant : S.K. Upadhyay
For the Respondents: C.S.C. and S. Mandhyan
Stamp duty should be charged on the security deposit as provided under Article 57(b) of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, and not as a 'mortgage deed'.
Headnote:
Stamp Duty - Security Deposit - The court directed not to charge stamp duty on security deposit treating it as 'mortgage deed' and to charge stamp duty as provided under Article 57(b) of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act.
Fact of the Case:
The question involved in the petition was regarding stamp duty to be charged on security deposit under the Stamp Duty Act. The court had previously considered this question in detail in a related case.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents not to compel the petitioners to pay stamp duty on the security deposit as a 'mortgage deed' and to charge stamp duty as provided under Article 57(b) of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act. The writ petition succeeded and was allowed to the extent indicated, with a clarification that the order is applicable only in cases where stamp duty is being asked on the security amount.
Issues: The main issue was the stamp duty to be charged on the security deposit and whether it should be treated as a 'mortgage deed'.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Stamp Duty Act and the previous Division Bench decision. It clarified that stamp duty should be charged on the security deposit as provided under Article 57(b) of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, and not as a 'mortgage deed'.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents not to compel the petitioners to pay stamp duty on the security deposit as a 'mortgage deed' and to charge stamp duty as provided under Article 57(b) of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act, with a clarification that the order is applicable only in cases where stamp duty is being asked on the security amount.
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
1. Heard Sri S.K. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.P. Singh Kachhwah, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri M.N. Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. The question involved in this petition is regarding stamp duty to be charged on security deposit under the Stamp duty Act. This question has been considered in detail by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 35096 of 2004 (M/s. Strong Construction v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 22.3.2005 along with 91 other connected petitions.
2. In view of aforesaid, the respondents are directed not to compel the petitioners to pay stamp duty on security deposit in question treating it as "mortgage deed" and to charge stamp duty on such security as provided under Article 57(b) of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act.
3. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, it is clarified that this order is applicable only in those cases where the stamp duty is being asked on the security amount and not in any other case. It is further made clear that the payment of stamp duty as directed above shall be subject to final decision of Special Leave Petition No. 8245 of 2005 (State of U.P. v. M/s. Strong Construction) said to be pending before the Supreme Court against the Division Bench decision of this Court dated 22.3.2005 passed in the case of M/s. Strong Construction referred above.
