Supreme Court grants leave on stamp duty case, sets aside conflicting High Court judgments.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in a case concerning stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, for a tripartite agreement involving the State, developer, and allottees. It set aside conflicting High Court judgments, directing parties to approach the competent authority in Uttar Pradesh for adjudication within six months. The Court refrained from opining on ongoing matters before lower courts, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of related writ petitions. Civil appeals were disposed of without costs, clarifying the jurisdiction of competent authorities in stamp duty issues.

---

---

Issues:
1. Stamp duty payable by developer and allottees under Sections 33/47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard the parties and granted leave to appeal in a case concerning the stamp duty payable by the developer and allottees under Sections 33/47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The main issue raised in the appeals was whether the tripartite agreement between the State, developer, and allottees should be considered a lease, leading to stamp duty implications. The High Court had previously given conflicting judgments in writ petitions filed by the developer and allottees. The Court noted that the High Court should not have adjudicated the issue without the necessary materials, as there is a statutory scheme for such adjudication by competent authorities. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the parties to approach the competent authority in the State of Uttar Pradesh for adjudication within six months.

Regarding a specific writ petition filed by the developer, it was mentioned that the matter had progressed through various adjudicating authorities and was currently before the High Court. The Supreme Court refrained from expressing an opinion on the legality of the orders passed by these authorities, leaving it to the parties to present their contentions before the High Court for appropriate orders. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the long-pending writ petitions by the High Court. Ultimately, the civil appeals were disposed of without any order as to costs.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified the jurisdiction of competent authorities in adjudicating stamp duty issues, directed parties to approach the relevant authority for resolution, refrained from interfering in ongoing proceedings before lower courts, and urged the High Court to expedite the disposal of related writ petitions.

---