ASAS INVESTMENT P LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF STAMPS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Intra-Court appeal impugns the order dated 20.01.2012 of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing W.P.(C) No.395/2012 preferred by the appellant. The said writ petition was preferred impugning the order dated 28.11.2011 of the Collector of Stamps, Kapashera, New Delhi finding the appellant liable for payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs. 7,71,940/- on the impounded document and also levying one time penalty of Rs. 7,71,940/- and thus raising a demand of Rs. 15,43,880/- on the appellant.

(2.) The impounded document is an Office Buyers Agreement dated 04.03.2010 whereunder respondent No.3 M/s Suncity Projects Ltd., as the perpetual lessee under the DDA and developer of Plot No. A, situated at Community Centre, Pocket V, Sector B, Vasant Kunj, Delhi, has agreed to sell office No.S-2 on the Second Floor having Super Area of 1286.73 sq. ft. to the appellant for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,28,67,300/-. The said Office Buyers Agreement was executed on a Stamp Paper of Rs. 100/- and was unregistered. It is not in dispute that in pursuance to the said Office Buyers Agreement, the respondent No.3 M/s Suncity Projects Ltd. has put the appellant into possession of the aforesaid office unit. The appellant after being so put into possession thereof, vide Lease Deed dated 21.01.2011, let out the said office unit to one M/s Steel Strips Wheels Ltd. The appellant at the time of registration of the said Lease Deed and to satisfy the Sub-Registrar of its title / capacity to so execute the Lease Deed produced the Office Buyers Agreement dated 04.03.2010 and when it was impounded under Section 33 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 and forwarded to the Collector of Stamps for charging of requisite stamp duty.

(3.) The Collector of Stamps after hearing the appellant found the said Office Buyers Agreement to be in the nature of part performance and chargeable with stamp duty under Article 23A of Schedule-IA of the Act as applicable to Delhi and vide order dated 14.03.2011 held the appellant liable for deficit stamp duty and penalty as aforesaid.