Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

M/S Ambt Navnirman Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Shri ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 2019

Author: Rohit Arya

Bench: Rohit Arya

                                                             1                                 MP-3045-2019
                                  The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                             MP-3045-2019
                        (M/S AMBT NAVNIRMAN PVT. LTD. THR. SHRI PRADEEP S/O SHRI KANHAIYALAL JAIN Vs THE STATE
                                                         OF MADHYA PRADESH)


                        Indore, Dated : 20-11-2019
                                Shri Vishwajit Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                Ms. Sadhna Pathak, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
                                This miscellaneous petition by the petitioner under Article 227 of the
                        Constitution of India is directed against confirming order dated 01.05.2019
                        passed by the Board of Revenue, and the order passed by the Commissioner,

                        Indore dated 19.12.2016 as well as the order passed by the Collector
                        [Stamps], Indore dated 28.06.2014.
                                Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this petition are to the

effect that petitioner alleged to have entered into an agreement to purchase the property as mentioned in para 5.1 of the writ petition. However, on the basis of objection raised by the auditor as regards stamp duties, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Sections 47 & 48 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioner was directed to deposit the deficit stamp duty by initiating proceedings under Section 48-B of the Act. The petitioner was unsuccessful before the appellate authorities i.e. Commissioner on 19.12.2016 and the Board of Revenue on 01.05.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner taking exception to the impugned orders and submits that authorities have not assessed the document in question in right perspective, resulting into passing order for recovery of remaining stamp duty against the petitioner in terms of Section 48-B of the aforesaid Act.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State supports the order impugned and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

A perusal of the agreement to sell it reveals that as the alleged agreement to purchase, though comafledged as without possession, but under Clause 7 thereof reads as under :-

2 MP-3045-2019 ^^7& ;g fd] fcdzhr laifRRk dk vkt fnukad rd dk leLr VsDl] rksth] yxku o 'kkldh;] v}Z 'kkldh; ns;d tks Hkh bl laifRr ij fu;ekuqlkj ns; gksrs gS] os fodzsrk ogu djsaxs ,oa vkt fnukad ds i'pkr~ Hkqxrku djus dk nkf;Ro dzsrk ij jgsxkA** It is unequivocally made it clear that liabilities towards taxes, revenue or any other Government and semi-Government charges shall be borne by the seller prior to the date of agreement to sell and thereafter by the purchaser.

This itself demonstrates that intendment of the agreement is a conveyance by way of an agreement to sell with delivery of possession.

Having perused the order impugned, this Court is of the view that the authorities have not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error and have applied correct principle of law by ordering petitioner to deposit the deficit stamp duty by proceedings under Section 48-B of the Stamps Act.

Miscellaneous Petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE jyoti Digitally signed by Jyoti Chourasia Date: 21/11/2019 11:06:19