Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. In the counter, it is the stand of the second respondent that the leave and license agreement dated 10.08.2023 executed between the petitioner and the fourth respondent for a period of 9 years was presented fore registration on 10.08.2023. The said document provides that the rent payable for the first 3 years is Rs.12,25,000/- and for the second 3 years is Rs.1,40,87,500/- and for the third 3 years is Rs.1,62,00,625/- and advance deposit as Rs.10,00,00,000/-. The third respondent impounded the same as it is not duly stamped. A show cause notice was issued on 04.09.2023 claiming deficit stamp duty and after considering the reply furnished by the petitioner, by order dated 18.10.2023 confirmed the order of the third respondent to the tune of Rs.1,92,59,800/-. The petitioner presented a representation seeking to cancel the document and refund the stamp duty. It is their contention that without exhausting the revision under Section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cum Inspector General of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Registration, thus, this writ petition is not maintainable. The question of canceling the document is not at all envisaged in the statute. According to them, once the document is impounded, the document cannot be returned unless the deficient stamp duty is paid. Thus, opposed this writ petition.

18. Thus, this Court is of the view that the very impounding the document treating it as lease when specific event of construction of building has not materialized and treating it as a lease deed cannot be valid in the eye of law. The impounding is permissible only when the document itself transferred the right to enjoy the property on certain terms when the document not been properly stamped, in such situation, the document can be impounded, not mere agreement creating future right that too without the happening of the certain event namely construction of building. Admittedly, the building was not in existence and not been constructed in the present case. Such situation, impounding the very document is not permissible in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis eye of law. It is also to be noted that the very purpose of proper stamp on the document is to use that document admissible in evidence to claim any right over the property. If the relevant stamp duty has not been paid, the party cannot use that document to establish any right over the property. Therefore, the very object of the Stamp Act is to make that document admissible to claim any right on the basis of the document if the stamp is not properly stamped, then such document cannot be used for any purpose.

30. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. P.Laxmi Devi reported in (2008) 4 SCC 720, in paragraph 16 has held as follows:

"16. A perusal of the said provision shows that when a document is produced (or comes in the performance of his functions) before a person who is authorised to receive evidence and a person who is in charge of a public office (except a police officer) before whom any instrument chargeable with duty is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, it is the duty of such person before whom the said instrument is produced to impound the document if it is not duly stamped. The use of the wordshall in Section 33(1) shows https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis that there is no discretion in the authority mentioned in Section 33(1) to impound a document or not to do so. In our opinion, the word shall in Section 33(1) does not mean may but means shall. In other words, it is mandatory to impound a document produced before him or which comes before him in the performance of his functions. Hence the view taken by the High Court that the document can be returned if the party does not want to get it stamped is not correct.

Emphasis supplied

36. As discussed above, as long as the party is not acting on the contract and never intended to use such document to establish any right over the subject property of the contract merely because the authority impounded such document, the authorities cannot impose condition to the parties to abide by the contract or document. It is absolutely prerogative of the parties either to chose the document or give up the document. If the contracting parties are not willing to take forward the contract to establish their respective rights, the authorities under the pretext of impounding the document, cannot compel the parties to pay the stamp duty compulsorily and register the document. In the present case, the very building was not in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis existence on the date of agreement, it is only contingent contract depending on the construction of the building which has not happened so far. The parties have given up the contract, still the parties cannot be demanded for payment of deficit stamp duty on the basis of adjudication made under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act.