Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Supreme Court Decides Stamp Duty Liability for Sale Deed Involving Immovable Property and Plant Machinery

03 September 2024 10:06 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the liability of stamp duty for a sale deed conveying immovable property, including plant and machinery. The judgment provides crucial insights into the interpretation of relevant sections of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Transfer of Property Act, and other associated laws.

The case pertained to a sale deed executed by the Official Liquidator, conveying various assets, including land, building, plant and machinery, and other current assets. The dispute centered around the determination of stamp duty liability for the sale deed, particularly with respect to the plant and machinery.

The Court delved into the interpretation of Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and examined precedents set by previous judgments, including the case of Member, Board of Revenue. It observed that if separate instruments had been executed for conveying distinct matters such as land, building, and plant machinery, stamp duty would have been payable on each instrument. However, if distinct matters were dealt with in a single instrument, the liability to pay stamp duty would be determined under Section 5 of the Act.

The Court further analyzed the recitals and clauses of the sale deed, emphasizing the intention of the parties and the nature of the transaction. It held that the sale deed conveyed not only the land but also the rights, easements, interests, and plant machinery attached to the earth. The value of the plant and machinery, meeting the criteria of immovable property, was found to be an integral part of the conveyed assets.

Regarding stamp duty liability, the Court upheld the view that the first respondent, who was the nominee of the second respondent and the actual vendee under the sale deed, was liable to pay the stamp duty. The absence of the second respondent did not affect the liability of the first respondent as the primary party responsible for stamp duty payment.

However, the Court recognized the need for further examination of the plant and machinery to ascertain its status as immovable property. It directed the authorities to determine whether the specific plant and machinery met the criteria of immovable property and, consequently, should be subject to stamp duty.

The Court also highlighted the powers conferred upon the authorities under the Indian Stamp Act and the Andhra Pradesh Amending Act (8 of 1988) to inspect properties, conduct local inquiries, and examine records to ensure compliance with stamp duty provisions. It emphasized the need for a thorough evaluation of undervalued instruments and the associated procedures outlined in Section 47A of the Act.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench and restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge, with modifications. The second appellant (District Registrar) was tasked with determining the value of the plant and machinery as per its status as immovable property. Additionally, the second appellant was directed to examine whether the first respondent qualified for the exemption of stamp duty based on the applicable laws.

In conclusion, this significant judgment clarifies the stamp duty liability for sale deeds involving immovable property and plant machinery. It emphasizes the need for a comprehensive assessment of assets and their classification as immovable property to determine the appropriate stamp duty payable.

THE SUB REGISTRAR, AMUDALAVALASA  & ANR.  VS  M/S DANKUNI STEELS LTD. & ORS.

Latest Legal News