TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court rules Stamp Act applies to Assignment Deed, emphasizes consideration stated in document.</h1> <h3>HIMALAYA HOUSE CO. LTD. Versus CHEIF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, determining that the Assignment Deed should be stamped under Article 23 of the Stamp Act with no consideration ... - Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the appeal.2. Applicability of Article 23 of the Stamp Act.3. Determination of consideration for the Assignment Deed.4. Authority of the Revenue to assess the value of the property independently.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Appeal:The appeal initially faced an objection regarding its maintainability, as the High Court was deemed incompetent to grant a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution. The appellant sought and obtained special leave from the Supreme Court, leading to the filing of Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1972. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 660 of 1967 was withdrawn and disposed of accordingly.2. Applicability of Article 23 of the Stamp Act:The core issue was under which article in Schedule 1 to the Stamp Act the Assignment Deed should be stamped. The High Court unanimously held that Article 23 in the First Schedule to the Indian Stamp Act was applicable. This article pertains to 'conveyance' and requires the stamp duty to be assessed based on the consideration mentioned in the document.3. Determination of Consideration for the Assignment Deed:The High Court was divided on what constituted the consideration for the Assignment Deed. The majority opinion held that the consideration was the total amount payable to the Assignor under agreements with various flat holders. However, Mody J. dissented, asserting that the consideration was as mentioned in the Deed itself, i.e., no consideration. The Supreme Court agreed with Mody J., concluding that the consideration mentioned in the document was nil and that the Revenue could not determine the consideration by looking outside the document.4. Authority of the Revenue to Assess the Value of the Property Independently:The Assistant Superintendent of Stamps had assessed the stamp duty based on an independent valuation of the property, considering the appellant company as a nominee of the flat holders. The High Court and the Supreme Court rejected this approach, stating that the Revenue must rely on the consideration set forth in the document itself. The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 27 of the Stamp Act requires the document to fully and truly set forth the consideration and other facts affecting the chargeability of the instrument with duty. However, any failure to comply with this requirement is punishable under Section 64 of the Stamp Act and does not empower the Revenue to make an independent valuation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the applicable article for stamping the Assignment Deed was Article 23 of the Stamp Act, and the consideration was as mentioned in the Deed itself, i.e., no consideration. The appeal was allowed, and the first respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1972. There was no order as to costs in Civil Appeal No. 660 of 1967.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
