LexTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. versus VIVEKANANDA M. HALLUR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 249 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. VIVEKANANDA M. HALLUR & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8803-8805 of 2012) DECEMBER 07, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Karnataka Stamps Act, 1957.- Schedule, Article 5(e)(i) - Explanation (ii) - Stamp duty - Levy of - On Sale Deed - A B On the basis of market value of the property on the day of the C execution - Writ petition seeking refund of the stamp duty - Single Judge of High Court allowing the petitions and directing refund - Writ appeal - Filed after delay of 449 days - Division bench of High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay as well as on merit - On appeal, held: Delay in filing D writ appeal ought to have been condoned - Since the Division Benc.'1 did not advert to the substantial ground urged by the State, matter remitted to High Court for consideration afresh on merit. A 'Sa11gha' regisstered under Karnataka Societies E F Registration Act, 1960 allotted residential sites to its members (respondents) by executing Lease-cum-sale Agreements. The lease period was for 10 years. The agreements were registered after payment of the required stamp duty. After completion of the lease period, Absolute Sale Deeds were executed and then presented for registration. While registering the sale deeds. Stamp duty was collected on the market value of the property on the day of execution of the deed and after adjusting the stamp duty paid on Lease-cum-Sale Agreements. Thereafter, G respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed writ petitions seeking refund of stamp duty paid on the Absolute Sale Deeds. Single Judge of High Court held that the respondents were not liable t~.pay the stamp duty on the amount shown as 249 H 250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 11 S.C.R. A consideration in the Absolute Sale Deeds and were entitled to refund thereof. The writ appeal thereagainst was dismissed by the Division Bench of High Court on the ground of delay as well as on merits. 8 In appeal to this Court, respondent Nos. 4 to 32 were impleaded. The question for consideration in the appeal were, whether the State had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing writ appeals; whether the Division Bench was correct in directing the State to repay the amount collected as stamp duty, when Article 5(e)(i) C Explanation (ii) of Karnataka Stamps Act, 1957 states that the amount collected on the sale or Lease-cum-Sale Deed shall be adjusted towards the total duty leviable on the conveyance? D Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The reasons for the delay of 449 days in filing the appeals before the Division Bench of High Court show that how the delay occurred. In view of the reasons E stated therein and in the light of the issues to be considered by the Division Bench of High Court as well as the financial implication on the State Exchequer, the reasons stated for the delay cannot be rejected as unacceptable. The Division Bench of the High Court ought to have condoned the delay and gone into the F merits of the matter in the light of the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. [Paras 7 and 8] [254-F-H; 255- A-B] 2. The Division Bench of High Court has not adverted G to any substantial grounds urged by tl1e State, particularly with reference to the provisions of Article 5(e)(i) and Explanation (ii) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Therefore, the order of the Division Bench is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh H consideration. The High Court is requested to restore STATE OF KARNATAKA v. VIVEKANANDA M. 251 HALLUR W.A. Nos. 1023, 1324 and 1325 on its file and dispose of A the same on merits in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to all the parties including the newly impleaded respondent Nos. 4 to 32 as well as the connected writ petitions pending before the High Court. [Para 9) [255-D-F] B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8803-8805 of 2012. From the Judgment and Order ~ated 19.06.2009 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in WA No. 1023, 1324 C and 1325 of 2009. P.P. Rao, Basava Prabhu S. Patil, B.S. Prasad, Anirudh, V.N. Raghupathy, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Filza Moonis, Akshat Kulshrestha, Mohan Pandey, Chandra Sekhar and D Anajana Chandrashekar for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.