Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Pechitti Ramakrishna vs Nekkanti Venkata Manohara Rao And Ors. on 28 November, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(1)ALD557, 2004(6)ALT427
ORDER P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Heard Mrs. Rama representing Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, the Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Lakshmana Sarma, the Counsel representing the respondents.
2. The short question in controversy between the parties is whether the agreement of sale dated 24-8-1998 is properly stamped or not and whether it is liable for stamp duty and penalty as per the provisions of Article 6 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act') as amended by A.P. Act 21 of 1995. The agreement of sale in question dated 24-8-1998 is in relation to the sale of vacant site. The said document is reduced into writing on a stamp paper worth Rs. 50/-. The question now being in controversy is that inasmuch as this agreement of sale falls under Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A of the Act as substituted by A.P Amendment Act 21 of 1995, the stamp duty is payable as specified in column No. 2. Yet another objection is that even otherwise the agreement of sale in question would fall under Article 6(C) of Schedule I-A of the said Act which deals "within any other case". Hence, the objection is that in any event the document in question is insufficiently stamped and hence the same is liable for the stamp duty and penalty and unless the same is paid the said agreement of sale cannot be looked into for any other purpose. Article 6(A) (iii) deals with a case where the value exceeds Rs. 20,000/- but does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- and the stamp duty payable specified on such an Agreement or Memorandum of an Agreement in column No. 2 is Rs. 50/-.
3. The Counsel representing the revision petitioner had placed reliance on Statement of Objects and Reasons in relation to Andhra Pradesh Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) (Amendment Bill, 1993) and had submitted that the Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A of the Act is a specific provision which is not applicable to the agreement in question. It is also stated that in any other case specified in Article 6(C) of Schedule I-A of the Act would be a case not falling under either A or B of Article 6 of Schedule I-A of the Act.
It may be appropriate to have a look at Article 6 of Schedule I-A of the Act which reads as hereunder:
"6. Agreement or Memorandum of an Agreement not otherwise provided for :
(A)Where the Value,--
(i) does not exceed Rs. 5,000/- ....................................................10-00
(ii) exceeds Rs. 5,000/-but does not exceed Rs. 20,000/-.............................20-00
(iii) exceeds Rs. 20,000/- but does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- ..................................50-00
(iv) exceeds Rs. 50,000/-.................................................................... 100-00 (B) (i) If relating to construction of a house or building including a multi-unit house or building or unit of apartment/flat/portion of a multi-storied building or for development/ sale of any other immovable property.
Five Rupees for every one hundred rupees or part thereof on the market value or the estimated cost of the proposed construction/development of such property as the case may be as mentioned in the agreement or the value arrived at, in accordance with the schedule of rates prescribed by the Public Works Department authorities, whichever is higher.
(C) In any other cases....................100-00
4. A careful reading of Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Act goes to show that it is applicable if the agreement relates to construction of a house or building including a multi-unit house or building or unit of apartment/flat/portion of a multi-storied building or for development/sale of any other immovable property. A further reading of the stamp duty payable specified in column No. 2 also makes it clear that this provision was introduced in relation to the construction agreements or agreements of the like nature. No doubt, emphasis was laid on the language "sale of any other immovable property". These words "sale of any other immovable property" in Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A of the Act may have to be read along with the rest of the provision and also with column No. 2. As far as any other case specified in Article 6(C) of Schedule I-A of the Act is concerned, it should be construed to be a case not falling under either A or B of Schedule I-A of the Act. It is needles to say that Article 6(A) of Schedule I-A of the Act is a general provision. It is no doubt true that in the present case, the sale consideration recited in the agreement of sale is Rs. 42,500/- and it is in relation to the sale of a vacant site. On a careful reading of the language employed in Article 6(A, B & C) of Schedule I-A of the Act and also the stamp duty payable specified in column No. 2 and taking into consideration the object of introducing B by A.P. Act 21 of 1995, I am of the considered opinion that Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A of the Act would be applicable only in such specified cases and the same cannot override the general provision of Article 6(A) of Schedule I-A of the Act and agreement in question would definitely fall under the general provision of Article 6(A)(iii) of Schedule 1-A of the Act and hence, the stamp duty already paid is sufficient. It is also clarified that in the light of the nature of the document Article 6(B) of Schedule-I-A of the Act is not applicable to the present case. Hence, the impugned order holding that the stamp duty and penalty relating to the document in question is liable to be paid under Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A of the Act cannot be sustained.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed. Costs made easy.