M/S TIRUPATI DEVELOPERS versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 598 · Decided: 08-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 598 
M/S TIRUPATI DEVELOPERS 
v. 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6619 of 2013) 
AUGUST 08, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - s.28 rlw Art.5 (b-1) of Schedule 
18 [as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand] and ss.33, 38 
C and 47 A - Deficit stamp duty - Agreements for sale executed 
in favour of appellant - Presented before the Deputy Registrar 
for registration - Matter referred by him to Assistant 
Commissioner (Stamp and Registration) who held that the 
stamp duty paid on the documents was deficient and directed 
o the appellant to make up for the deficit stamp duty alongwith 
penalty imposed as well as interest - Writ Petitions in High 
Court - Partial relief given to appellant modifying the orders 
of Deputy Registrar, inasmuch as deficient stamp duty was 
worked out at a lesser amount and on this reduced penalty 
E of 15% was imposed - Held: The subject matter of the 
documents fell u/s. 33 - Subsequent conduct of the parties in 
cancelling the agreements cannot be a reason for not taking 
action u/s. 33138 - Main argument of the appellant before the 
High Court was that at the relevant time stamp duty was 
payable @ Rs. 801- per thousand whereas the Assistant 
F 
Commissioner (Stamps) had calculated the same @ Rs. 1251 
- per thousand - This argument has already been accepted 
by the High Court whereby stamp duty payable was reduced 
and relief to that extent has already been given - Likewise the 
High Court also set aside the order of the Assistant 
G Commissioner (Stamps) in so far as the interest payment was 
imposed upon the appellant - In any case, High Court 
reduced the penalty to 15% of the deficit stamp duty, thereby 
giving sufficient succour to the appellant - No further relief can 
be granted to the appellants. 
H 
598 
TIRUPATI DEVELOPERS v. STATE OF 
599 
UTTARAKHAND 
Eleven Agreements for sale were executed in favour 
A 
of the appellant/petitioner. In each of these agreements 
a part of land situated in a village in Uttarakhand was 
sought to be purchased by the appellant. The Deputy 
Registrar concerned impounded all these documents as 
he felt that the documents were not sufficiently stamped. 
8 
Matter was referred by him to the Assistant Commissioner 
(Stamp and Registration) who directed the appellant to 
make up for the deficit stamp duty alongwith penalty 
imposed as well as interest. Revision Petition before the 
Additional Commissioner was dismissed. That order was 
C 
challenged by filing Writ Petitions in the High Court which 
met the same fate in so far as issue regarding deficient 
stamp duty is concerned. However, partial relief was 
given to the appellant modifying the orders of Deputy 
Registrar, inasmuch as deficient stamp duty was worked 
0 
out at a lesser amount and on this reduced penalty of 
15% was imposed. 
In the instant appeals, the appellant referred to the 
provisions of Section 2, Section 3 and Section 10 of the 
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and on that basis submitted that 
E 
at the time of agreement to sale, stamp duty is not 
payable at all. 
The appellant, further argued that in the instant 
cases, the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) had 
adjudicated the matter under Section 33/38 of the Stamp 
Act which was clearly illegal as these provisions were not 
applicable and instead, the case should have been dealt 
with u/s 47 A of the Stamp Act. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
F 
G 
HELD: 1. A conjoint reading of Section 28 of the 
Indian Stamps Act, 1899 read with Article 5 (b-1) of 
Schedule 1 B, as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand 
clearly depict that the stamp duty is payable on 50% of 
H 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 
A the Value of consideration of the sale agreement. As per 
this, in the illustrative case chosen by this Court, where 
the total consideration was Rs. 24,70,000/-, stamp duty 
was to be calculated on Rs. 12,35,000/-. Instead the 
appellant had paid stamp duty of Rs. 10,000/- only. It is 
B manifest, therefore, that the stamp duty paid on the 
document was deficient which was rightly impounded by 
the Deputy Registrar and sent for adjudication. [Paras 11 
and 12) [606-B, F-H] 
2. As per Section 33 of the Stamps Act, every person 
C having, by law or consent of parties authority to receive 
the evidence or every person in-charge of a public office 
is duty bound to impound the instrument when produced 
before him, and he finds that such an instrument i

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