TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1754
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Charanya L., Adv., Mr. Aaditya Bhattacharya, Adv., Ms Apeksha Mehta, Adv., Mr. Victor Das, Adv., Mr. Manish Rastogi, Adv., Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, AOR, Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Praveen Kumar, AOR, Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Adv., Ms.Babita Sant, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Adv., Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR, Ms. Abhipsa Anamika, Adv., Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR, Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv., Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv, Mr. Alok Yadav, Adv., Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR For the Respondent : Mr. Dev Datt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Nishanth Patil, AOR, Mr. Javed Ur Rahman Adv., Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv., Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv., Mr Pai Amit, Adv., Mr Priyadarshi Chaitanyashil, Adv., Ms. Sujata Kurdukar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the balance which shall be equal to,- (i) thirty three per cent, where the default relates to one quarter; (ii) fifty per cent, where the default relates to two quarters; and (iii) seventy five per cent, where the default relates to more than two quarters; (c) fifty per cent of such balance; where a penalty under section 54 has been imposed; (d) fifty percent of such balance where the order appealed against has been passed under section 22 and a penalty has been imposed under the said section, and (e) twenty five per cent of such balance; in any other case, and (ii) by the Tribunal under sub-section (2), unless out of the total balance due from the dealer after the order passed by the Additional Commissioner or Appellat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... person who is authorized to receive evidence and a person who is in charge of a public office (except a police officer) before whom any instrument chargeable with duty is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, it is the duty of such person before whom the said instrument is produced to impound the document if it is not duly stamped. The use of the word 'shall' in Section 33(1) shows that there is no discretion in the authority mentioned in Section 33(1) to impound a document or not to do so. In our opinion, the word 'shall' in Section 33(1) does not mean 'may' but means `shall'. In other words, it is mandatory to impound a document produced before him or which comes before him in the performance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed object and intendment of the Stamp Act, and by seeking to find out the hardship which will be caused to a party by the impugned amendment of 1998. 20. In Partington vs. Attorney-General (1969) LR 4 HL 100, Lord Cairns observed as under: "If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind. On the other hand if the court seeking to recover the tax cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of the law the case might otherwise appear to be." The above observation has often been quoted with approval by this Court, and we endorse it again. In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. vs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial and quasi-judicial adjudications. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant." 24. In Anant Mills Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat 1975(2) SCC 175 this Court held that the right of appeal is a creature of the statute and it is for the Legislature to decide whether the right of appeal should be unconditionally given to an aggrieved party or it should be conditionally given. The right to appeal which is a statutory right can be conditional or qualified. 25. In M/s. Elora Construction Company vs. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and Ors. AIR 1980 Bombay 162, the question before the Bombay High Court was as to the validity of Section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Act which requir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rroneously determines it to be, say, Rs. 2 crores. In that case while making a reference to the Collector under Section 47A, the registering officer will demand duty on 50% of Rs. 2 crores i.e. duty on Rs. 1 crore instead of demanding duty on Rs. 10 lacs. A party may not be able to pay this exorbitant duty demanded under the proviso to Section 47A by the registering officer in such a case. What can be done in this situation? 29. In our opinion in this situation it is always open to a party to file a writ petition challenging the exorbitant demand made by the registering officer under the proviso to Section 47A alleging that the determination made is arbitrary and/or based on extraneous considerations, and in that case it is always open t....