Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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.

Similar News