https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457083 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457083 Discretion of the trial court in imposing penalty on insufficiently stamped documents - quantum of penalty - whether the trial court which had admitted the agreements to sell in evidence could have exercised its discretion in imposing penalty at the rate of 2 times of deficient amount of stamp duty or it was obligatory for the trial court to impose the penalty at the rate of 10 times? HELD THAT:- There is clear contradistinction between the power Under Section 33 and 39. The object and purpose for such contradistinction in the provision and power is not far to seek. Section 33 applies to every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in-charge of a public office. Thus, Section 33 covers a host of authorities, persons before whom instruments are filed. The legislative scheme does not indicate any distinction between a court receiving an insufficiently stamped instrument in evidence and other authorities. All have to impose penalty of 10 times of the duty or deficit portion, if it exceeds rupees five. This provision is for purpose of maintaining a uniformity in imposing a fixed penalty of 10 times without adverting to any adjudicatory process regarding quantifying the quantum of penalty. The statute gives discretion to Deputy Commissioner who is the authority envisaged by the Act in-charge of the revenue administration of a District. The power to refund the penalty Under Section 38 clearly indicates that legislature have never contemplated that in all cases penalty to the extent of 10 times should be ultimately realised. Although the procedural part which provides for impounding and realisation of duty and penalty does not give any discretion Under Section 33 for imposing any lesser penalty than 10 times, however, when provision of Section 38 is read, the discretion given to Deputy Commissioner to refund the penalty is akin to exercise of the jurisdiction Under Section 39 where while determining the penalty he can impose the penalty lesser than 10 times. In view of impounding the documents and imposition of penalty, we are sure that the suit must not have been proceeded further, and it must be at the threshold stage; asking the Appellant to deposit 10 times of penalty and thereafter to invoke the jurisdiction of Deputy Collector Under Section 38 to refund penalty shall be a proceeding again taking considerable time. In the facts of the present case, the ends of justice be served in closing the matter by confirming the payment of deficit duty with the double penalty as imposed by the trial court which shall obviate the proceeding of approaching the Deputy Commissioner for reduction of penalty Under Section 38, which in the facts of the present case and for the reasons noted by the trial court was a relevant consideration for refund/reduction of the penalty. The High Court has correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 33 in the impugned judgment but instead of prolonging the matter permitting the Appellant to deposit 10 times of penalty and thereafter to take recourse Under Section 38, the proceedings regarding penalty on the agreements to sell is closed by approving the direction of the trial court for payment of entire deficit duty and double the penalty. Appeal disposed off. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530