CASE TITLE – HARI PARVAT FINANCIAL ADVISORS AND CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR OF STAMPS
CASE NUMBER – LPA 383/2024 & CM APPL. 28428/2024, CM APPL. 28429/2024
DATED ON – 13.05.2024
QUORUM – Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Ms. Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
FACTS OF THE CASE
This is an appeal put forth by the Appellant, challenging the decision of a Learned Single Judge of the same Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Where the Appellant was granted an interim stay subject to deposit a 50% pay demanded by the Collector of Stamps, Chanakyapuri. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Appellant in September, 2017 had approached the Collector of Stamps with an application under Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for the determination of the stamp duty payable. However, the appellant after much delay on 1st April, 2024 received an order from the Collector of Stamps inter alia (‘among other things’) indicating that the appellant is liable to pay stamp duty along with a penalty, totaling to Rs.1,00,20,167/-.
ISSUES
Whether the Collector of Stamps is out of his jurisdiction when exercising his powers of adjudication while his duty is merely those of an Advisory one?
LEGAL PROVISION
Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, prescribes the procedure on how to get official clarification on the required stamp duty for a document from the Collector of Stamps.
Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, prescribes the establishment of the oversight power by which the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority reviews the Collectors’ decisions in certain matters.
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT
The Appellant states that the order passed by the Collector of Stamps is wholly without jurisdiction and directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the demand raised as a pre-condition would prima facie legitimize an order passed without jurisdiction. The argument is also based on the fact that when an “instrument” is submitted to a collector under Section 31 of the Stamp Act for determination of stamp duty, the jurisdiction exercised by the collector is an advisory jurisdiction and the collector is not called upon to exercise powers of adjudication. While exercising power under Section 31, the collector has to merely determine the duty and has no power to impound the document.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the writ petition in itself is not maintainable as the appellant has an alternative effective remedy of approaching the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 56 of the Stamp Act.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble Court did not deem it appropriate to comment as to the merits of the case as it was still pending adjudication before the Learned Single Judge of the same Court. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, reduced the amount of the deposit to 25% of the demand raised by the Collector of Stamps. And had instructed the amount to be deposited with the Registry of this Court within four weeks from the date. And due to the current position that the Court finds itself in, it had further strongly iterated that although the current Appeal has been disposed of, it refused to make any comments regarding it’s merits, and also mentioned that the rights and contentions of either parties remain open.
This could also mean that the parties could work on and further strengthen their arguments and even bring forth a clear precedent regarding this issue.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao
