Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

State Legislature Has the Authority to Impose and Collect Stamp Duty on Insurance Policies at the Rate Prescribed by Parliament:  Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India has upheld the power of the State of Rajasthan to levy and collect stamp duty on insurance policies issued within its territory. This landmark decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, emphasizes the state's legislative competence under the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952. The judgment clarifies the interplay between state and central legislative powers regarding stamp duty, offering significant insights into the constitutional distribution of taxation authority.

The case originated from the Life Insurance Corporation of India's (LIC) issuance of various insurance policies in Rajasthan between 1993-94 and 2001-02. During this period, LIC was required to affix stamps by paying stamp duty on these policies in accordance with the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as adapted by the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952. However, due to the non-availability of specific stamps in Rajasthan, LIC purchased the necessary stamps from Maharashtra. This led the Rajasthan government to issue orders demanding payment of stamp duty, which LIC challenged, arguing that the state lacked the legislative competence to impose such a duty.

The Supreme Court underscored that the State of Rajasthan has the legislative competence to levy and collect stamp duty on insurance policies under Entry 44 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Constitution of India. The court highlighted that while the Parliament has exclusive power to prescribe the rate of stamp duty for instruments specified in Entry 91 of List I (Union List), states can legislate on the levy and collection of such duties. "The state legislature has the authority to impose and collect stamp duty on policies of insurance at the rate prescribed by the Parliament," the bench observed.

The court determined that the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952, applies to the insurance policies issued between 1993-94 and 2001-02. The Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, which came into force on 27 May 2004, was deemed not applicable for the relevant period. The judgment noted, "The 1952 Act governs the imposition of stamp duty for the period in question, ensuring legal consistency and adherence to the statutory framework in force at the time."

Clarifying the payment mechanism under the 1952 Act and the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955, the court stated that stamp duty must be paid to the state government, and stamps must be purchased from the state treasury. The court recognized the practical difficulties faced by the appellant, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), due to the non-availability of Rajasthan-specific stamps, which led them to purchase stamps from Maharashtra.

The bench distinguished the present case from the VVS Rama Sharma v. State of UP judgment, noting, "The VVS Rama Sharma case pertained to a different legal context under the UP Stamp Rules framed under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, without involving a state law with Presidential assent like the 1952 Act in Rajasthan." This differentiation highlighted the unique statutory provisions applicable in the current scenario.

While affirming the state's power to levy stamp duty, the court directed that the state government should not demand and collect stamp duty as per the disputed orders dated 16 September 2004, 16 October 2004, 11 October 2004, 1 November 2004, and 28 October 2004. The judgment acknowledged the administrative lapses and specific circumstances that led to the appellant's predicament.

Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha remarked, "The power to levy stamp duty on all documents is concurrent under Entry 44 of List III. However, the power to prescribe the rate is with the Parliament for instruments specified in Entry 91 of List I. This judgment reaffirms the balance of legislative authority between the state and the Union, ensuring clarity in the imposition and collection of stamp duties."

The Supreme Court concluded by dismissing the appeals and affirming the judgment of the High Court dated 21 February 2011, while setting aside certain findings of the High Court. The court held that the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952, applies to the period in question, upholding the state’s legislative competence to levy and collect stamp duty on insurance policies at the rate prescribed by the Parliament. The court directed the state government not to demand and collect stamp duty as per the orders dated 16 September 2004, 16 October 2004, 11 October 2004, 1 November 2004, and 28 October 2004, due to specific administrative lapses and circumstances.

Date of Decision: 30 April 2024

Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others

 

Latest Legal News