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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...