M/S Ansal Housing and Construction Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Kurian, J.
Rohinton Fali Nariman, J.
Judgment Date: 2016-03-09
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court's judgments are set aside in part; the dispute is relegated to the competent authority under the Indian Stamp Act to adjudicate on merits and pass final orders within six months. The authorities are directed to issue notices, hear the parties, and decide the dispute on merits. The High Court is to dispose of the related writ petitions expeditiously. The court did not express any opinion on the legality of orders already issued by the competent authorities and there is no order as to costs. The civil appeals are disposed of.
Final Disposition: Appeals disposed of with no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M/S Ansal Housing and Construction Limited

Respondents

State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Case Synopsis & Summary

This judgment deals with stamp duty payable under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, in the context of a housing development project involving a bipartite agreement between the Uttar Pradesh government and the developer, and a later tripartite arrangement with allottees. The Allahabad High Court had taken divergent positions: in the developer’s writ petition it relegated the dispute to the competent authority for decision under the Stamp Act; in the allottees’ writ petitions it held that the tripartite arrangement amounts to a lease and attracts full stamp duty. The Supreme Court re-examines whether the High Court was justified to decide on the lease character and the quantum of duty in the absence of a fully fleshed record, and whether the statutory scheme provides for exclusive adjudication by competent authorities. It holds that, in the absence of materials before the High Court, it was improper to decide the issue at once, given the statutory framework. Accordingly, the Court sets aside the August 16, 2011 order and directs the Stamp Act authorities to hear and determine the dispute on its merits, issuing notices and deciding within six months. It also notes ongoing adjudication in related proceedings and refrains from commenting on the legality of orders already passed by the authorities. The appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs, and an emphasis on expeditious disposition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 33 and 47A

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the High Court erred in adjudicating the lease nature and quantum of stamp duty in writ petitions where a statutory scheme under the Stamp Act provides for adjudication by competent authorities. They argue the issue, including the tripartite arrangement with allottees, falls within the purview of the Stamp Act authorities, and that the matter should be referred to those authorities for merits-based decision; there were questions about exemptions for allottees and the proper classification of the arrangement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the tripartite arrangement constitutes a lease and attracts full stamp duty under Sections 33/47A; the allottees’ position in the related writ petitions supported the levy of stamp duty as a lease. They pressed for adherence to the High Court’s view that the arrangement is subject to stamp duty and urged timely adjudication under the statutory scheme, while objecting to unnecessary interference by higher courts with the stamp-duty determination.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 893 ## MIS. ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED A v. ## '.'TATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal Nos. 2582-2584 Of2016) ## MARCH 09, 2016 B ## **[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.]** _Stamp Act, 1899_ - _ss.33/47A_ - _Stamp duty_ - _Payment of, by the developer and the al/ottees ulss. 33/47A_ - _On facts, in a writ petition filed by the develope1; in respect of the bipartite agreement belll'een the State and !he developer, the High Court relegated the developer to the co111petent authority_ - _However, in the writ petitions flied by the allottees of the developer, in respect of the tripartite agreement between the State on the one hand and the developer and a/lo/tees on the other hand, the High Court held that full stamp duty is payable on the basis that the arrangement is a lease_ - _On appeal held: High Court was not justified in adjudicating the issue when there is a statutory scheme provided for adjudication of such issues by the competent authorities concerned_ - _Jn respect of writ petition filed by al/ottees of the developer, parties relegated to the competent authority under the Stamp Act for the adjudication of the dfapute_ - _In writ petition filed by the developer, authorities have passed orders and matter is pending before the High Court and the same is to be dfaposed of expeditiously._ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 258284 of2016. c D E F From the Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2011 in Writ-C No. 40656 of2004 and order dated 16.08.2011 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 73277 of2010 and order dated 16.08.2011 in Misc. Writ Petition No. 56556 of20 I 0 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Sachin Datta, S.R. Singh, Sr. Advs., Ms. Dharitry Phookan, Yibhu Tiwari, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Chandra Prakash, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Sudeep Kumar, Yinay Garg, R.R. Rajesh, (For Mr. Brajesh Kumar) Advs. for the appearing parties. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **H** 893 894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R. A **KURIAN, J.** I. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. B c D 3. The short issue raised in the.se appeals pertains to the stamp duty payable by the developer and the allottees under Sections 33/47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 4. In a writ petition filed by the developer, in respect of the bipartite agreement between the State and the developer, the High Court by judgment dated 4th August, 2011 relegated the developer to the competent authority. However, in the writ petitions filed by the allottees of the developer, by another judgment dated 16th August, 2011, the High Court took the view that even in respect of the tripartite agreement between the State on the one hand and the developer and allottees on the other hand also, full stamp duty is payable on the basis that the arrangement is a lease. Before us, several contentions are taken, some of which we may refer below :- 1. Whether the tripartite agreement qua the allottees is a lease, is a matter to be adjudicated by the competent authority and therefore, the High Court was not justified in going to that issue; 2. The allottees were in any case exempted from payment of the stamp duty. E There are a few other contentions as well. F 5. In our view, bereft of the required materials before the High Court, the Court was not justified in adjudicating the issue at the first instance when there is a statutory scheme provided for adjudication of such issues by the competent authorities concerned. 6. In that view of the matter, without expressing any further opinion, we set aside the judgment dated 16.8.2011 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 73277 of 20 I 0 and other connected matters. The parties are relegated to the competent authority under the Indian Stamp Act in the State of Uttar Pradesh for the adjudication of the dispute. We direct G the Authority concerned to issue notice to the parties, hear them and pass final orders on merits on the dispute within a period of six months from today. 7. As far as Writ Petition 40656 of 2004 filed by the developer leading to the Judgment dated 4.8.2011 is concerned, we are informed H _MIS._ ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LTD. v. STATE 895 OF UTTAR PRADESH [KURIAN, J.] that during the pendency of the special leave petition before this Court, the adjudicating authority has passed an order on 16.1.2015 and thereafter the matter was carried before the appellate authority and the appellate authority passed an order on 22.4.2015 and the issue is now before the High Court. It appears that the authorities have passed such orders on different dates and therefore, similar other matters are consequently before the High Court. 8. Therefore, we express no opinion on the legality or otherwise of the orders passed by the competent authorities, since it is for the parties to take up all available contentions before the High Court and it is for the High Court to pass appropriate orders. A B c 9. Having regard to the fact that the issue has been pending since long, we request the High Court to dispose of the writ petitions expeditiously. I 0. The civil appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. 11. No order as to costs. D Nidhi Jain Appeals disposed of.