Imposition of a Penalty of Ten Times under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act is Not Automatic and Cannot be Imposed: Supreme Court

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

In the case of Trustees of H.C Dhanda Trust v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. The Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the discretion exercised by the Collector to impose a penalty on evasion of stamp duty must be based on a rational and fair basis.

Brief Facts of the Case

The Collector of Stamps held a transfer of property as a gift deed. It found a deficit of stamp duty to Rs.1,28,09,700/- and also imposed ten times penalty to Rs.12,80,97,000/-. Its order required the Appellant Trust to deposit the amount of Rs.14,09,06,700/- within thirty days.

The Appellant has filed the present appeal on being aggrieved by the orders of the lower courts against this issue.

Appellant’s Arguments

About Section 331 and 332 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the document, the executed Deed is not a Gift Deed. Also, the said Deed of Assent was executed and there exists no deficiency in the stamp duty. Also, the penalty of ten times was not justified nor explained by the Collector of Stamps.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Appellant was involved in the evasion of stamp duty hence the penalty imposed was justified. There were proved suppression of facts which led to the loss of adequate stamp duty being paid. Hence the imposition of penalty is not illegal.

Court’s Observation

The issue for determination is the imposition of ten times penalty by the Collector of Stamps under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (“the Act”).The provision under Section 40(1) indicates that if the Collector is satisfied, he has the authority to impose a penalty amount that does not exceed ten times. This discretion of the Collector has to be exercised.

The Bench observed that the legislative intent of Sections 33, 35, 38, and 39 of the Act is not to impose a penalty to the extent of ten times in all situations. The purpose of the penalty generally is deterrence and not retribution. When discretion is given to a public authority, such public authority should exercise such discretion and not in an oppressive manner.

The imposition of the extreme penalty i.e. ten times of the duty or deficient part thereof cannot be based on the mere fact of evasion of duty.

It stated that the reason such as fraud or deceit to deprive the Revenue or undue enrichment are relevant factors to decide about what should be the extent of the penalty under Section 40(1)(b). It is only in the very extreme situations that the penalty needs to be imposed to the extent of ten times.

The Bench stated that in the present facts and circumstances, it was not a case of imposition of extreme penalty of ten times of deficiency of stamp duty.

Hence, reducing the penalty imposed to the extent of the half i.e. five times of deficiency in the stamp duty was necessary.

Court’s Decision

The Court reduced the stamp duty penalty of ten times of Rs.12,80,97,000/- into five times the penalty i.e. Rs.6,40,48,500/-. It held that this was not a case where an extreme penalty of ten times of deficiency of stamp duty is required.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -