Skip to main content

Supreme Court explains calculation of stamp duty on tenanted properties

Cause Title : Shanti Bhushan vs State of U.P., Civil Appeal No. 8388 Of 2017, Supreme Court Of India

Date of Judgment/Order : 25/4/2023

Corum : Abhay S. Oka., J & Rajesh Bindal, J.

Citied: 

  1. Special Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation Officer, Sagar vs M.S. Seshagiri Rao, (1968) 2 SCR 892
  2. Mangat Ram and Others vs State of Haryana and others, (1996) 8 SCC 664
  3. O.N. Talwar vs The Collector of Stamps, (1971) 7 DLT 319
  4. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Mysore, Bangalore v. V.C. Ramachandran, (1966) 60 ITR 103
  5. State of Rajasthan vs Khandaka Jain Jewellers, (2007) 14 SCC 339

Background

The issue is the stamp duty to be paid by the Appellants for registration of sale deed on purchasing a property measuring 7818.00 sq.mts. land along with construction and super structure standing thereon where they are the permanent tenants. 

By using the rent capitalisation method, the appellants calculated Rs. 6,67,200/­ as the market value of the sale deed property and paid the stamp duty on the said market value quantified at Rs. 46,700/­. The Assistant Stamp Collector, held that the market value of the land having an area of 7818 sq. meters will have to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 24,000/­- per sq. meter or Rs.19,23,08,305/­- and therefore the deficiency in the stamp duty was to the extent of Rs.1,33,07,900/­. Appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order of the Asst. Stamp Collector was dismissed and the said valuation was agreed upon by the High Court. Hence this appeal.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the Stamp Act is a taxing statute. In interpreting such a statute, equitable considerations cannot be applied. A taxing statute has to be interpreted in accordance with what is clearly expressed therein. While interpreting such a statute and determining the liability to pay tax, the provisions are required to be construed strictly. In other words, the rule of literal construction must be applied while interpreting a taxing statute. It must be interpreted in terms of the natural construction of the words used. There is no scope to imply anything which is not expressly provided.

In view of Article 23 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, the stamp duty payable on a conveyance will be in accordance with the market value of the subject property on the date of the conveyance unless the consideration shown therein is more than the prevailing market value.

The test for determination of the market value is very simple. The market value is the one which a bona fide and willing buyer will offer.  There is also no doubt that a property in possession of a tenant or tenants will fetch lesser value in the open market than the market value of a similar property exclusively in possession of the vendor. The reason is that the buyer will not get actual possession of the portion of the property in possession of the tenant.

Necessary deductions will have to be made from the market value as the appellants were already in possession of the sale deed land as tenants. The extent to which deduction can be made will depend upon the nature of the tenancy and other material factors. Some tenancies may be protected under the relevant rent control legislation, whereas some may not be protected. That is all a matter of evidence.

The market value can be determined by the comparison method even in case of a property in possession of tenants. The issue regarding the market value of the sale deed land on the date of execution of the sale deed is required to be decided by permitting the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence. The Assistant Collector will have to ascertain whether a comparable sale instance of a property in possession of tenants is available. If it is not available, the Assistant Collector will have to ascertain the market value of the sale deed property on the relevant date again by comparison method by taking market value of a comparable property which does not have encumbrance of tenancy. Thereafter, he will have to determine the percentage of the deduction which should be made from the market value in the facts of this case. These questions are to be decided by the Assistant Collector on the basis of the evidence on record. 

Therefore, subject to what has been held in the judgment, the Supreme Court send back the case to the Assistant Stamp Collector for determination of the market value of the sale deed land on the date of execution of the sale deed.


Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even