BOARD OF REVENUE, U.P. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus M/S. ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES OF INDIA, ISHWARI SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 293 · Decided: 04-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
BOARD OF REVENUE, U.P. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MIS. ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES OF INDIA, 
ISHWARI SINGH AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 4, 1995 
[KULDIP SINGH ANDS. SAGHIR AHMED, JJ.) 
U.P. Town Improvement Act, 1919(as amended by Local Self Govem-
ment Laws (Amendment) Act, 1966. 
S.67-H(l)-Additional duty chargeable on deed of transfer of immov-
able prope1ty-Nature of-Held: it is stamp duty under Stamp Act-Provisions 
of ss.33, 40 and 48 Stamp Act can be invoked if increased duty leviable under 
s.67-H(l) has not been paid. 
Indian Stamp Act, 1899: 
Ss.3, 33, 40 48, 57-Stamp duty-Additional duty chargeable under 
s.67-H(l) of U.P. Town Improvement ActP.Held is stamp dut;-Whole of 
Stamp Act has been made applicable to documents covered by s.67-H of U.P. 
Act. 
The respondents mortgaged certain immovable properties executing 
a mortgage deed in favour of the U.P. Financial Corporation. The 
authorities under the Stamp Act found that in view of section 67-H(l) of 
the U.P. Act, the stamp duty was deficient. The document was impounded 
under the provisions of the Stamp Act. The respondents after paying the 
deficient duty under protest made an application under Section 45 of the 
Stamp Act for refund. The Revenue referred the following questions for 
opinion of the High Court under section 57 of the Stamp Act: 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(1) 
Whether an instrument of simple mortgage of immovable 
property situated in an area to which the U.P. Town Improve-
G 
ment act was made applicable was a deed of transfer of 
immovable property within the meaning of section 67-H of the 
said Act? and 
(2) 
Whether a public officer was barred from impounding a docu-
ment under section 33 and the Collector was barred from H 
293 
A 
B 
294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
imposing any deficit duty and penalty under section 40 and 
realising the same under section 48 of the Stamp Act on a deed 
of transfer of immovable property on which Stamp duty as 
payable under the Stamp Act only was paid and the increased 
duty under Section 67-H of the Town Improvement Act was 
not paid? 
The High Court answered question No. 1 in the affirmative and in 
favour of the Revenue. It, however, answered question No. 2 against the 
Revenue holding that the duty leviable under section 67-H of the U.P. Act 
was in the form_ of surcharge payable under the said Act over and above 
C 
the stamp duty; that the said duty was assessed independently of the stamp 
duty and was not to be calculated in accordance with the manner provided 
in the Stamp Act. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal. 
D 
E 
Allowing the appeal and answering question No. 2 in the negative 
and in favour of the Revenue, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court was not justified in holding that the 
additional duty payable under Section 67-H of the U.P. Town Improvement 
Act, 1919 was not the duty under the Stamp Act. Provisions of Section 
67-H(l) indicate that it is the duty's Imposed by the Indian Stamp Act, 
1899" which is increased by 2 per cent in respect of any deed of transfer of 
immovable property within the area to which the Act applies. The docu-
ment which comes within the mischief of Section 67-H(l) is first assessed 
to normal stamp duty under the Stamp Act and thereafter the stamp duty 
so assessed is increased by 2 per cent on the amount or value of the 
consideration with reference to which the Stamp duty is calculated under 
F 
the Stamp Act. The legislative-intent is clear inasmuch as that even after 
adding 2 per cent.increase, the total stamp duty remains a levy under the 
Stamp Act. It would be doing violence to the simple language of the statute 
to state that 2 per cent increase is only a surcharge and is not a duty under 
the Stamp Act. The tenor of_the section makes it clear that what comes out 
G after adding 2 per cent increase is the stamp duty under the Stamp Act 
and not any other levy. It cannot be treated differently despite the depar-
ture in the method of calculating the same. (299-B-E; 300-B] 
1.2. It cannot be said that the Legislature applied only Sections 27 
and 64 of the Stamp Act to a deed of transfer covered by Section 67-H(l) 
H 
of the U .P. Act and the other provisions of the Stamp Act are not attracted. 
BOARD OF REV., U.P. v. ELECTRONIC INDS. OF INDIA 
295 
Reading sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 67-H with sub-section (1) of A 
the said section, clearly shows that whole of the Stamp Act has been made 
applicable to the documents covered b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.