Stamp Duty:
Deficit stamp duty – Demand for – Penalty imposed ten times C the deficit duty – In litigation Supreme Court modified the penalty amount reducing the same to half – Stamp duty was paid – Thereafter the property in question was sold – Permission for construction on the property was sought by the subsequent purchaser – Property was mutated in the name of the purchaser – The purchaser submitted post-dated cheques towards the penalty amount – Notice was issued by competent authority demanding outstanding amount towards penalty – Permission for construction was denied – High Court upheld the demand of penalty and holding that payment of penalty by post-dated cheques cannot be approved – As regards notice by Municipal Corporation, High Court observed that the purchaser E could apply afresh for permission for construction after paying the penalty amount in toto – Appeal to Supreme Court – During pendency of the appeal orders issued by Municipal Corporation to handover the land in question to the Corporation – Challenged in interlocutory application – Held: High Court rightly did not interfere with the demand of penalty – As regards the notice by Municipal Corporation, the observation of the High Court amply protects the right of the purchaser – The orders of Municipal Corporation passed during pendency of the appeal being subsequent actions cannot be entertained in the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In pursuance of the order of the Collector dated 22.09.2008, the Trustees were liable to deposit stamp duty as well as penalty. Although deficiency of stamp duty was deposited through the Treasury Challan dated 01.11.2019 but the penalty was not deposited and only post-dated cheques were submitted. The High Court has rightly observed that facility to deposit the penalty by post-dated cheques cannot be approved and the appellant being subsequent purchaser was liable to deposit the amount of penalty which was outstanding against the property and which was subject matter of the gift deed dated 21.04.2005. The High Court has rightly not interfered with the order dated 04.06.2020 issued by the Addl. Tehsildar(Recovery) demanding an amount of Rs.8,80,97,025/- which was outstanding on the above date. [Para 16][1034-C-E]
1.2 The order of Collector dated 22.09.2008 was modified by Supreme Court and the amount of penalty was reduced to the extent of half of the ten times penalty. Therefore, the respondents are to take steps in compliance to the said order. The issue of penalty as imposed by the order of the Collector of Stamps dated 22.09.2008 having already been decided, all the parties are to act in accordance with the said judgment. [Para 18][1034-G-H; 1035-A]
2. As regards order dated 4.6.2020 issued by the Building Officer of Municipal Corporation, the direction of the High Court that after the deposit of the stamp duty and the penalty, the Municipal authorities to reconsider the application for building permission, amply protects the rights of the appellant. In view of the deposit made by the appellant towards the penalty, the appellant is free to apply for building permission which is to be considered by the Municipal Corporation as observed by the High Court. [Paras 19 and 20][1035-C-E]
3. The orders and notices issued by the Municipal Corporation and other State Authorities which have been brought on record by the IA No. 72517/2020 are all subsequent actions which were not subject matter of the writ petition before the High Court and cannot be taken into consideration in the present appeal. The said issues cannot be entertained. Liberty is given to the parties to seek such remedy with regard to subsequent actions and orders as permissible in law. [Paras 21-22][1035-FG] ANR.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.