Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11 Appellant received another show cause notice dated 29.12.2012 issued by Collector of Stamp/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hauz Khas, New Delhi calling upon the Appellant to show cause as to why action under section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 be not initiated against the Appellant for recovery of deficient stamp duty.

Appellant again submitted a detailed reply to the Collector of Stamps dated 08.01.2013, who once again duly brought to light that the fair market value as per the approved valuer works out of Rs.56,12,00,000/­ than the accepted sale consideration of Rs.83,00,00,000/­ 12 Appellant receive order dated 11.01.2013 issued by the Collector of Stamps, Hauz Khas, New Delhi whereby the Collector of Stamps in clear contrast with its previous order calculated the stamp duty chargeable at an arbitrary and unreasonable figure who impose an exorbitant and unreasonable penalty upon the Appellant to the tune of Rs.7,19,04,120/­ 13 Aggrieved by aforesaid order appellant filed the present appeal on the following grounds that collector of Stamps after giving his opinion and determining the stamp duty payable for the immovable property under section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 became functus officio and the provision of Section 33 to impound the Sale Deed dated 15.10.2012 could not be applied to the Appellant; order dated 10.01.2013 passed by the Collector of Stamps is directly in conflict with the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Collector of Stamp whereby not only the appellant was informed that the sale consideration amount of Rs. 83,00,00,000/­ was truly set forth on the proposed sale deed in respect of Service Apartment Building with permissible coverage of 5 independent floors at A­3, District Centre,Saket N Delhi commonly referred as "Svelte Hotel & Personal Suites". An amount of Rs.4,98,00,000/­ consisting 6% of 83,00,00,000/­ would be the required / requisite stamp duty for the execution of the sale deed Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 as contained in Chapter III is a complete code in itself and not only operates as estoppel . Order dated 11.1.2013 is illegal and has been passed in complete violation of law; order dated 11.01.2013 passed by the Collector of Stamps is void and non set as Collector of Stamps once having adjudicated the value of stamp duty becomes functus officio who cannot review his own order dated 11.10.2012; power to give opinion/adjudicate under Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 is given only to the Collector of Stamps the Sub Registrar had erred in impounding the sale deed engrossed upon the value of stamp papers as adjudicated by the Collector of Stamps under Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899; Collector of Stamps arbitrarily and whimsically vide order dated 11.1.2013 revised his own order and also imposed penalty illegally and unjustly the subsequent valuation of the property subject matter of the Sale Deed is bad in law and the same also is in direct conflict with the order dated 6.08.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi; the action of the Respondent of impounding the Sale Deed presented by the Appellant for Registration to Sub Registrar V­A under section 33 of Indian Stamp Act 1899 is illegal and show cause notice issued to appellant to show cause as to why action under section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 is violative of the order dated 11.10.2012; Impounding the sale Deed by the Sub Registrar under section 33 of the Act is mala fides and arbitrary act without any basis when the sale deed had been presented for Registration on the basis of adjudication under section 31 of the Act ; Order dated 11.01.2013 as passed by the Ld Collector of Stamp pursuant to the reference by the Sub Registrar is completely non­speaking and an unreasoned order does not even refer to the previous adjudication order dated 11.10.2012; Ld Collector in its impugned order has erroneously asses the value of the property . He has failed to appreciate that the Appellant has purchased the Property as a whole alongwith proportionate indivisible rights in the plot bearing No.3 District Center, Saket New Delhi on which the entire mixed use development comprising of hotel/service apartments, multiplex, offices and retail have been built; Collector in its impugned order has wrongly determined that the Property under transfer fall under the category of Flats for computation of Stamp duty and the multiplication factors prescribed for commercial use and private builder are to be applied in the instant case; Collector failed to appreciate that the Appellant has purchased the Property without any sub­division/fragmentation of the Hotel/Service Apartments and shall always remain indivisible and impartdible.

AVERMENTS OF RESPONDENT:

14 Respondent filed its reply submitting that this appeal is presented under the provisions of Section 47 A (4) of the Indian Stamp Act . Proceedings under reference were under the provisions of Section 31,33,38 and 40 of the Indian Stamp Act . These provisions are referred to by the appellant at numerous places in the appeal itself . As per the provision of Section 56(i) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 under Chapter VI, captioned "Reference and Revision" it is clearly stated that " the power exercisable by a Collector under chapter IV and chapter V shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority ." A specific provision for Revision of an order passed by the Collector of Stamps under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act is provided by the Act itself by way of filing a Revision Petition before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Despite the specific provision, the Appellant has filed the present Miscellaneous Civil Appeal under a different and non­applicable provision of law .

31 After considering the objection/ reply of the appellant Sh S K Gupta, collector stamps , Hauz Khas vide his order dated 11.01.13 held that actual plinth area under transfer is 9015.12 sq meter ( 8179.02+836.10) of C category locality . He has taken up minimum built up rate as Rs.60,000/­ per sq meter and multiply the same by 3x1.25 for commercial as well as for multistoryed flat by private builder and assessed the value of the property as 2,02,84,02,000/­ and chargeable stamp duty at a rate of 6% as Rs.12,17,04,120/­ thus assessing deficiency in stamp duty as Rs.7,19,04,120/­ and imposed a penalty of equal amount to the deficient stamp duty thereby calculating total amount of Rs.14,38,08,240/­ payable by the appellant. 32 From the above discussion it is well establish on the judicial file that appellant had participated in all the proceedings conducted under section 33,38 and 40 of Indian Stamp Act . It is also established that sale deed (instrument ) in question was impounded by the Sub Registrar (V­A), Hauz Khas, Mehrauli prior to registering the same and forwarded to the Collector of Stamp Mehrauli U/S 38 of Indian Stamp Act for initiated action U/S 40 of Indian Stamp Act. 33 Present appeal has been filed under Section 47A of Indian Stamp Act. Section 47­A (1) is as under:

38 Ld counsel for appellant relied upon State of Rajasthan Vs Maharja Shri Karni Singhji, AIR 1983 Rajasthan 90, Satyavir Singh Vs Collector of Stamps CM(M) 845/2006 and Seema Grover Seth Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors WP (C) 13122/2009 of Delhi High Court , ratio of law laid down in these authorities is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In State of Rajasthan Vs Maharja Shri Karni Singhji, AIR 1983 Rajasthan 90, has been held that revision u/s 56 of Stamp Act would not lie against an order passed under section 47­A of Indian Stamp Act . It has been held in this case that provision of 47­A provided for an appeal against an order passed under this provision and revisional jurisdiction under the provision of 56 cannot be invoked. In the case in hand, impugned order was not passed by the Collector u/s 47­A but it has been passed u/s 40 of Indian Stamp Act against which revision lies u/s 56 of the Indian Stamp Act. Satyavir Singh Vs Collector of Stamps CM(M) 845/2006 and Seema Grover Seth Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors WP (C) 13122/2009 of Delhi High Court deals with appeal filed before the Court of District Judge against order passed by Collector of Stamp u/s 47A but not u/s 40 of Indian Stamp Act, as in the present case. In Seema Grover's case Hon'ble High Court of Delhi relied upon Abhinav Kumar Vs State of Haryana has also observed that provision of Section 47A came in force after the registration of document . Even in State of Punjab Vs Mohar Singh 1996 (1) SCC 609 relied upon on behalf of appellant it has been held that provision 47­A will be applicable after registration of instrument and forwarding the same to collector subsequently. Ratio of law laid down in Himalaya House Co; Vs The Chief Controlling Revenue (1972) 1 Supreme Court Cases 726 does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case . 39 Ld counsel for appellant strongly argued that when Collector of Stamps U/S 31 of Stamp Act determines the duty which is payable on an instrument and such instrument presented with such stamp duty chargeable on the same, the instrument shall deemed to be fully stamp . Section 31 does not postulates anything further to be done by the Collector . It is argued after giving an adjudication / opinion under the provision of Section 31 Collector becomes functus officio . In support of his argument Ld counsel for appellant placed reliance on a full bench judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad Govt of UP & Ors Vs Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan 1961 AIR 787 .