TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a certificate of sale issued on auction of immovable property is chargeable to stamp duty and whether the purchaser can avoid liability on the basis that the Sub-Registrar entered the document in Book No. 1 and the authorities thereafter proceeded on that mistaken entry.
Analysis: The liability to stamp duty was held to arise under the Stamp Act and not to be displaced by the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, which merely provided the mode of recovery of government dues. A sale certificate, though exempt from compulsory registration under the Registration Act, does not become exempt from stamp duty when it is presented for registration or copied into Book No. 1 under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908. The Court further held that Section 29(f) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 makes the purchaser liable to bear the duty on a certificate of sale, and that the Sub-Registrar's bona fide mistake in entering the document in Book No. 1 could not create any enforceable right in favour of the petitioner. The writ remedy under Article 226 could not be used to defeat a statutory liability, and the plea that the document was only a copy was also rejected as immaterial to the substantive chargeability of the instrument.
Conclusion: The certificate of sale was held chargeable to stamp duty and the purchaser was held liable to pay it; the challenge to the orders was rejected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
