PRESIDENTKANKARIA APARTMENT CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITYAHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference is at the instance of Kankaria Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Ahmedabad, and the question concerns the liability to stamp duty in respect of eleven sale deeds executed in favour of the said society by a builder who conveyed under twelve separate documents of sale, a building with twelve flats built up an Sub-Plot No. 78 of T. P. Scheme -No. 4 of Manager Final Plot No. 73 admeasuring 840 Sq. yards. The price shown in each, one of those documents, which we have said earlier is for 1/12th undivided share, of the land and the superstructure thereon, was Rs. 40,500/-.

(2.) The question concerns the exemption claimed by the Co-operative Society from the liability to pay stamp duty on these sales as the purchasers on the basis of a notification dated 28th March, 1968 an eleven out of the twelve documents which were all executed by if same seller to the same purchaser on the same day, viz,, on 16th March, 1973. But, even before such documents were finally executed, draft of one of such documents was presented by Shri U J. Thakore before the Assistant Superintendent of stamps, Ahmedabad, in favour of adjudication under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (Bombay Act No. LX of 1958). It appears from the statement of facts that before this application was dealt with, another draft of the same document was Med before the Superintendent of Stamp, Ahmedabad. On the second application, the Assistant Superintendent intimated that document was a conveyance chargeable with a stamp duty of Rs. 2,430/- under Article 25 (b) of the Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. Evidently, the party was not happy with this decision and he took a draft document before the Collector, Mehsana, within whose jurisdiction the property was not situate. On 22-8-1973, he made a request to the Collector, Mehsana, for adjudication under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (Bombay Act No, LX of 1958). Evidently, it would appear that the question which had already been adjudicated upon by the Assistant Superintendent of Stamps, Ahmedabad, was not brought to the notice of the Collector, Melisana. The latter gave a certificate under Section 32 (2) -to the effect that the instrument was not chargeable to any stamp duty. With this certificate, the purchaser Co-operative Society presented the document before the Sub-Registrar. Ahmedabad, and obtained registration. Evidently, citing this as a precedent, the other eleven documents were also registered by the sub-Registrar, but in those cases no opinion under Section 31 was sought nor any certificate under Section 32 of the Stamp Act obtained.

(3.) The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority during the course of inspection of the office of the Collector, Mehsana, noticed that a wrong certificate was issued by the Collector and that the provision relating to exemption which persuaded the Collector to issue the certificate was not applicable to the case in question. Evidently, on his initiative, the Assistant Superintendent of Stamps, Ahmedabad, took up the matter, enquired with the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad, and then contacted the purchaser society. It was directed to produce the relevant document of purchase, whereupon the eleven documents other than the one which had been registered on certification, were produced before the Assistant Superintendent, Stamps, Ahmedabad. He took the view that the exemption relied on would not apply and, therefore, each one of the eleven documents was liable to imposition of stamp duty of Rupees 2,430/-and besides this he imposed a penalty of Rs. 150/-in each of the cases in respect of the eleven documents. The matter was taken up in revision to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority who found no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the Assistant Superintendent, Stamps. He further felt that the penalty imposed was inadequate and, therefore, enhanced the penalty to Rs.1,000/- in each of the cases, thus imposing a total penalty of Rs. 11,000/ .