LexGOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. versus SMT. P. LAXMI DEVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 330 ~r A GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. v. SMT. P. LAXMI DEVI (Civil Appeal No. 8270 of 2001) B FEBRUARY 25, 2008 [H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] Stamp Act, 1899 - s. 47 A (as amended by Andhra ... Pradesh Act 8 of 1998) - State amendment imposing deposit c of 50% of deficit stamp duty as a condition precedent for making reference to Collector - Constitutional validity of - Held.· The provision as amended is constitutional - It is not violative of Articles 14, 19 or any provision of the constitution - The amendment is an economic measure with aim for D plugging the loopholes for quick realization of duty- It is within the power of State Legislature - Invalid order by an authority under a statute does not make the statute itself unconstitutional -.y - A legal remedy is available against such invalid order - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 19, Seventh E Schedule List II Entry 63 rlw List Ill Entry 44. Judicial Review - Of statute - Scope of - Held: Invalidation of statute, being a grave step has to be taken in rare and exceptional circumstances - Statute can be declared unconstitutional not because it is possible to hold so, but only F when that is the only possible view not open to rational question .._ - In case of possibility of two views, one for and the other against the constitutional validity, the former will be preferred - Court not to decide the wisdom of the legislature - There is presumption in favour of Constitutionality of a statute and the G court should uphold it even by giving strained/narrower/wider meaning to the provisions thereof - Courts should practice great restraint while dealing with economic statutes, and should be activist in defending the civil liberties and fundamental rights of the citizens. ... H 330 GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. v. 331 SMT. P. LAXMI DEVI Interpretation of Statutes- Taxing statutes - Interpretation A of- Held: Such statutes should be construed strictly- Hardship is not a relevant factor for construing such statutes - If the words used, are clear, one cannot try to find out the intention and object of the statute. Respondent filed a writ petition seeking declaration 8 thats. 47A of Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by Andhra Pradesh Act 8 of 1998 which required a party to deposit 50% deficit stamp duty as a condition precedent for a reference to the Collector under Section 47A, was unconstitutional. High Court held it as unconstitutional. C Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Section 47 A of the Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by Andhra Pradesh Act 8 of 1998 is constitu- D tionally valid and the judgment of the High Court declaring it unconstitutional is not correct. The right to appeal which is a statutory right can be conditional or qualified. There is no violation of Articles 14, 19 or any other provision of the Constitution by the enactment of Section E 47A as amended by the A.P Amendment Act 8 of 1998. This amendment was only for plugging the loopholes and for quick realization of the stamp duty. Hence it is well within the power of the State legislature vide Entry 63 of List II read with Entry 44 of List Ill of the Seventh F Schedule to the Constitution. [Paras 18, 24 & 27] [348-D; 349-8; 346-E-F] Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad and Ors. 1999(4) SCC G 468; Vijay Prakash D. Mehta vs. Collector of Customs (Preventive) 1968(4) SCC 402; Anant Mills Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat 1975(2) SCC 175 - relied on. Mis. Elora Construction Company vs. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and Ors. AIR1980 Bombay 162; H 332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. \~ A Shyam Kishore and Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr. 1993(1) SCC 22 - referred to. 1.2 It cannot be said that the document can be returned if the party does not want to get it stamped. A B perusal of s. 33 of Stamp Act shows that when a document is produced (or comes in the performance of his functions) before a person who is authorized 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 c 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 word 'shall' in Secti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.