Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abdul Qudoos vs Davinder Kumar And Anr on 6 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063070
CR-5996-2022(O&M)
1
134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-5996-2022(O&M)
Date of decision : 06.05.2024
Abdul Qudoos ...Petitioner
Vs.
Davinder Kumar and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (Oral)
1. Learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the trial
court has erred in directing the petitioner to pay the amount of penalty
equivalent to 10 times of the deficient stamp duty. He submits that the trial
court has erred in applying the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in 'Trustees of H.C. Dhanda Trust vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others'
2020 AIR (SC) 4349.
2. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties.
3. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession. The entire case of the
plaintiff is based upon an agreement to sell dated 19.10.2015. In the aforesaid
agreement, the defendants acknowledges the receipt of Rs. 25,00,000/- out of
total sale consideration of Rs.32,00,000/-. The agreement was scribed on stamp
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063070
CR-5996-2022(O&M)
paper of worth Rs.100/-. The court below has found that the plaintiff is liable to
pay stamp duty in terms of Entry 5(CC) amended by the Indian Stamp (Punjab
Amendment) Act, 2005. The Court has found that the proper deficient stamp
duty is Rs. 1,49,900/-. Further directions have been issued to the plaintiff to
make good the deficient stamp duty alongwith penalty of Rs.1,49,900/-.
4. In "Amit Kumar Vs. Neha Bhatia and others", Civil Revision No.
6050 of 2019, decided on 03.08.2022, the Court has held that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the amount of penalty should be equal to the amount
of deficient stamp duty.
5. In H.C. Dhanda's case, the Supreme Court has held that the
maximum penalty payable on deficient stamp duty is to the extent of 10 times
of the deficiency in the stamp duty and the registration lies with the Court or
the authority to impose penalty looking at the facts and circumstances of the
case. In this case, there is no material to show that the plaintiff intentionally
tried to evade the payment of stamp duty or tried to cause loss to the revenue.
Moreover, by amendment in the Stamp Act, the stage at which the stamp duty
is payable has been advanced to the date of agreement to sell. Otherwise, the
amount of stamp duty remains the same. If the stamp duty is not paid at the
time of the agreement to sell, the same shall be payable at the time of
registration of the sale deed. Moreover, if a stamp duty has been paid at the
time of execution of the agreement to sell, the same will be adjusted against the
total stamp duty payable at the time of registration. Hence, at this stage, there is
no material to come to the conclusion that there was attempt to cause loss to
the revenue.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063070
CR-5996-2022(O&M)
6. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court is modified. The
plaintiff shall be liable to make good the deficiency of the stamp duty
alongwith the amount of penalty, which is equivalent to the deficient stamp
duty.
7. Disposed of.
8. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
06.05.2024 JUDGE
neeraj
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
3 of 3
