DOLMEN REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LTD. vs PROVINCE OF SINDH Ss — 2023 CLC 2162 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

DOLMEN REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LTD. VS PROVINCE OF SINDH Ss. 29, & 62, Sched. 1---Execution of instrument---Payment of stamp duty---Liability, determination of---Stamp duty, deficiency of---Penalty, imposition of---Chief Inspector of Stamps while declaring the duty qua lease agreement as deficient, demanded not only payment of said duty but also imposed penalty upon both the parties (lessors and lessees), which order was maintained by the Chief Revenue Authority---Petitioner (lessor/company) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court contenting that in terms of specific clause of agreement between the parties, only the lessee was liable to pay the amount of requisite duty and penalty, who had already paid the same---Contention of the respondents / Authorities was that all executants of lease agreement were liable to fulfill order of payment---Held, that the contention of the respondents (authorities) was misconceived and contrary to the provisions of S. 29 as well as S. 62 of the Stamp Act, 1899, as both the said sections could not be read in isolation and the same were required to be read together for being complimentary to each other---Provisions of S. 29 of Stamp Act, 1899, were charging provisions, which created liability upon a person to pay stamp duty on instrument as described in any of Arts. of Sched. 1 to the Stamp Act, 1899; and unless any person was liable to pay stamp duty under section 29 of the Stamp Duty Act, 1899, he could not be held liable to penalty for default of any other person, who was otherwise liable to pay such amount of stamp duty in terms of S. 29 of Stamp Act, 1899 and the agreement executed between the parties contrary to provision of S. 29 of the Stamp Act, 1899---Even the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899, did not provide for imposition of penalty on all the executants parties of an instrument chargeable with duty---Term "any person" referred to any of the executant, other than a witness of an instrument chargeable with duty, subject to his liability to pay stamp duty in terms of S. 29 of the Stamp Duty Act, 1899---Intention of the Legislature in said regard was clear from the plain language of the said provisions as instead of using the words "any person", the words "every person" could have been used to make all the executants of instrument liable to pay penalty under S. 29 of the Stamp Act, 1899---It was liability of lessee/tenant who had already paid the amount of duty as well as penalty imposed by the respondents---High Court set-aside impugned orders and judgments passed by the respondents/authorities , requiring the petitioner/lessor to pay duty/penalty---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

DOLMEN REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LTD. vs PROVINCE OF SINDH Ss — 2023 CLC 2162 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLC