<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1986 (2) TMI 344 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275887</link>
    <description>A sale certificate issued on auction of immovable property remains chargeable to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, even though it is exempt from compulsory registration. Liability is not displaced by the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, which deals only with recovery of government dues, and Section 29(f) places the duty burden on the purchaser. The Court also treated the Sub-Registrar&#039;s mistaken entry in Book No. 1 under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act as creating no enforceable right, and rejected the plea that the document was merely a copy. Article 226 could not be used to defeat the statutory duty, so the purchaser was held liable to pay stamp duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2018 10:18:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=539087" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (2) TMI 344 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275887</link>
      <description>A sale certificate issued on auction of immovable property remains chargeable to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, even though it is exempt from compulsory registration. Liability is not displaced by the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, which deals only with recovery of government dues, and Section 29(f) places the duty burden on the purchaser. The Court also treated the Sub-Registrar&#039;s mistaken entry in Book No. 1 under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act as creating no enforceable right, and rejected the plea that the document was merely a copy. Article 226 could not be used to defeat the statutory duty, so the purchaser was held liable to pay stamp duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275887</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>