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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more