M/S. MSD REAL ESTATE LLP versus THE COLLECTOR OF STAMPS & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 1027 · Decided: 17-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1027
M/S. MSD REAL ESTATE LLP
v.
THE COLLECTOR OF STAMPS & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3194 of 2020)
SEPTEMBER 17, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Stamp Duty:
Deficit stamp duty – Demand for – Penalty imposed ten times
the deficit duty – In litigation Supreme Court modified the penalty
amount reducing the same to half – Stamp duty was paid – Thereafter
the property in question was sold – Permission for construction on
the property was sought by the subsequent purchaser – Property
was mutated in the name of the purchaser – The purchaser submitted
post-dated cheques towards the penalty amount – Notice was issued
by competent authority demanding outstanding amount towards
penalty – Permission for construction was denied – High Court
upheld the demand of penalty and holding that payment of penalty
by post-dated cheques cannot be approved – As regards notice by
Municipal Corporation, High Court observed that the purchaser
could apply afresh for permission for construction after paying the
penalty amount in toto – Appeal to Supreme Court – During
pendency of the appeal orders issued by Municipal Corporation to
handover the land in question to the Corporation – Challenged in
interlocutory application – Held: High Court rightly did not interfere
with the demand of penalty – As regards the notice by Municipal
Corporation, the observation of the High Court amply protects the
right of the purchaser – The orders of Municipal Corporation passed
during pendency of the appeal being subsequent actions cannot be
entertained in the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In pursuance of the order of the Collector dated
22.09.2008, the Trustees were liable to deposit stamp duty as
well as penalty. Although deficiency of stamp duty was deposited
through the Treasury Challan dated 01.11.2019 but the penalty
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 1027
1027
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1028
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
was not deposited and only post-dated cheques were submitted.
The High Court has rightly observed that facility to deposit the
penalty by post-dated cheques cannot be approved and the
appellant being subsequent purchaser was liable to deposit the
amount of penalty which was outstanding against the property
and which was subject matter of the gift deed dated 21.04.2005.
The High Court has rightly not interfered with the order dated
04.06.2020 issued by the Addl. Tehsildar(Recovery) demanding
an amount of Rs.8,80,97,025/- which was outstanding on the above
date. [Para 16][1034-C-E]
1.2 The order of Collector dated 22.09.2008 was modified
by Supreme Court and the amount of penalty was reduced to the
extent of half of the ten times penalty. Therefore, the respondents
are to take steps in compliance to the said order. The issue of
penalty as imposed by the order of the Collector of Stamps dated
22.09.2008 having already been decided, all the parties are to
act in accordance with the said judgment. [Para 18][1034-G-H;
1035-A]
2. As regards order dated 4.6.2020 issued by the Building
Officer of Municipal Corporation, the direction of the High Court
that after the deposit of the stamp duty and the penalty, the
Municipal authorities to reconsider the application for building
permission, amply protects the rights of the appellant. In view of
the deposit made by the appellant towards the penalty, the
appellant is free to apply for building permission which is to be
considered by the Municipal Corporation as observed by the High
Court. [Paras 19 and 20][1035-C-E]
3. The orders and notices issued by the Municipal
Corporation and other State Authorities which have been brought
on record by the IA No. 72517/2020 are all subsequent actions
which were not subject matter of the writ petition before the High
Court and cannot be taken into consideration in the present
appeal. The said issues cannot be entertained. Liberty is given
to the parties to seek such remedy with regard to subsequent
actions and orders as permissible in law. [Paras 21-22][1035-F-
G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1029
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3194
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.06.2020 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W.P. No. 8145 of 2020.
Puneet Jain, Ms. Christi Jain, Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia and
Mishra Saurabh, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High
Court

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