The High Court correctly distinguished between the jurisdiction ...

SC: Appellant to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty for admitting agreement as evidence, not ten times penalty.

Case Laws     Indian Laws

September 4, 2024

The High Court correctly distinguished between the jurisdiction vested in every person or public office and the District Registrar in determining penalty on insufficiently stamped instruments. The appellant must pay deficit stamp duty and penalty to produce the agreement of sale as evidence. The scheme allows invoking the District Registrar's jurisdiction directly and presenting the instrument before Court after complying with duty and penalty requirements. The respondent raised an objection on deficit stamp duty before admission of the instrument as evidence, requiring impounding and sending it to the District Registrar u/s 39. Imposing ten times penalty at this stage is illegal. The District Registrar should decide the quantum of stamp duty and penalty payable u/s 39. The direction to pay ten times penalty is set aside. The trial court is directed to send the agreement to the District Registrar to determine deficit stamp duty and penalty payable.

View Source