Attached plant and machinery count toward immovable property for stamp duty, but penalty needs express statutory authority.

Plant and machinery permanently attached to an industrial unit sold on an as-is-where-is basis were treated as part of the immovable property for stamp duty, because they were fixed to the earth and intended for the beneficial enjoyment of the undertaking; the full consideration was therefore assessable to duty. Penalty for undervaluation could not be sustained because, on the relevant date, the stamp provision did not authorise such a levy and the later amendment could not operate retrospectively; the penalty was set aside. The duty assessment was upheld, but the penalty component was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether plant and machinery attached to the industrial unit formed part of the immovable property so as to attract stamp duty on the entire consideration. (ii) Whether penalty could be imposed in the absence of statutory authority at the relevant time.

Issue (i): Whether plant and machinery attached to the industrial unit formed part of the immovable property so as to attract stamp duty on the entire consideration.

Analysis: The sale documents and surrounding circumstances showed that the petitioner had purchased the entire industrial undertaking together with land, building, plant and machinery on an as-is-where-is basis. The machinery was fixed to the earth and was intended to remain with the unit for its beneficial enjoyment. Property so attached, in the context of the transaction, was not to be treated as mere movable goods. The consideration could not be split to exclude the value of the plant and machinery from the assessable value for stamp duty.

Conclusion: The inclusion of the plant and machinery in the value for stamp duty was upheld and the challenge failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty could be imposed in the absence of statutory authority at the relevant time.

Analysis: On the date of the impugned order, the relevant stamp provision did not authorise imposition of penalty for undervaluation. That power was introduced later by amendment and could not operate retrospectively. In the absence of express authority, the penalty order was without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The penalty was illegal and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The assessment of stamp duty on the entire sale consideration was sustained, but the penalty component was quashed, resulting in only partial relief to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where plant and machinery are permanently attached to and intended for the beneficial enjoyment of an industrial unit sold as a going concern, their value forms part of the immovable property for stamp duty purposes, but penalty cannot be imposed unless the statute expressly confers such power at the relevant time.

---