Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Maram Badra Reddy, S/o.Sri Papi Reddy, (died) – Appellant
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.
Questioning the proceedings in Memo No.CC/P.F./2009 dated 02.01.2009 issued by the District Registrar, Nalgonda, whereby the writ petitioners were called upon to pay the deficit stamp duty, the present Writ Petition is filed.
2. Heard Sri G. Pedda Babu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms.T. Swetha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for respondent. Perused the record.
3. Facts in brief as stated in the Writ Petition are as follows:
Petitioner No.1 submits that he has entered into a registered agreement of sale – cum – General Power of Attorney dated 19.11.2003 registered as document No.7139/2003, with his owners M/s.Kethireddy Rama Narsimha Reddy and others, in respect of house bearing Municipal Nos.5-4-41, 5-4-42, 5-4-43, 5-4-44, 5-4-46, 5-4-47 and 5-4-48 for an extent of 700 Sq. yards, situated at Rashtrapathi Road, Nalgonda Town. The 2nd Petitioner also entered into an Agreement of Sale - cum –General Power of Attorney dated 19-11-2003 registered as document No.7140/2003 with the said owners in respect of house bearing M.No.5-4-45, admeasuring 1250 sq. yards and M.No.5-4-66 and 5-4-66/A, a
A development agreement requires registration and proper documentation; failure to disclose accurate property valuation leads to the assessment of additional stamp duty under the STAMP ACT.
Point of law: Supreme Court held that an agreement to sell is a conveyance within the meaning of Act and if such a document is not duly stamped it is inadmissible in evidence.
The Collector of Stamps must assess whether the properties under the Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney are identical to determine the applicable stamp duty under the Maharashtra Sta....
The government notification creating an indefeasible right for reduced stamp duty on conveyances influenced the court's decision in favor of the petitioner.
The applicable stamp duty for an unregistered agreement of sale for open agricultural land falls under Article 6(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, not Article 6(B).
Procedural compliance under Section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act is essential and if satisfied, appeals should resolve substantive disputes rather than writ petitions.
Procedural compliance under Section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act suffices for levy of deficit stamp duty; remedy through appeal is not barred by concurrent writ proceedings.
The potential use of land at the time of sale is critical in determining stamp duty, and the burden of proof lies with the state to show that the correct duty was not paid.
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
