2001 (5) TMI 972 - HC - Indian Laws

Court declares 50% deposit provision unconstitutional under Article 14

P. Laxmi Devi Versus Government of A.P. and Ors.

The court declared that the provision requiring a 50% deposit of the differential duty as a condition for referral to the Collector was unconstitutional. ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by A.P. Act No.8 of 1998.2. Requirement to deposit 50% of the differential stamp duty as a condition precedent for referring the matter to the Collector.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of Section 47-A:The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended by A.P. Act No.8 of 1998. The amended provision required the party presenting a document for registration to deposit 50% of the differential duty as estimated by the registering authority. The petitioner argued that this requirement was arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.2. Requirement to Deposit 50% of Differential Duty:The petitioner had purchased land and, due to a breach of contract by the vendor, had to file a suit and subsequently an execution petition. When the sale deed was presented for registration, the registering authority objected to the quantum of non-judicial stamps and demanded a deposit of 50% of the differential duty before referring the matter to the Collector for determination of market value. The petitioner contended that the estimate by the registering authority was provisional and should not necessitate a deposit for further adjudication.Arguments Presented:- The petitioner's counsel argued that the provision under Section 47-A was arbitrary and unreasonable, as the estimate by the registering authority was provisional and would only attain finality after adjudication by the Collector.- The Additional Advocate-General for the State countered that the provision was salutary and necessary for availing the statutory remedy, ensuring the collection of proper stamp duty.Court's Analysis:- The court examined the legislative history and amendments to Section 47-A, noting that the provision allowed the registering authority to refer documents to the Collector for determination of market value if the stated value seemed understated.- The court highlighted that the registering authority's role was administrative, not adjudicative, and that the final determination of market value and stamp duty was the Collector's responsibility.- The court found that the requirement to deposit 50% of the differential duty before referral to the Collector was beyond the scope and intent of the Stamp Act. It noted that the document remains pending registration until the proper duty is determined and paid, ensuring the protection of public revenue without necessitating an upfront deposit.Judgment:The court declared that the provision requiring a 50% deposit of the differential duty as a condition for referral to the Collector was unconstitutional. It held that this requirement violated the equal protection of laws guaranteed under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Consequently, the court struck down the proviso to Section 47-A, which mandated this deposit. The registering authority was directed to refer the document to the Collector without any conditions attached. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded.