THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SUBRATA SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitions were preferred by the apartment owners of a housing complex, namely, Sisir Kunja situated at Madhyamgram, district - North 24 Parganas (hereinafter referred to as the said property) claiming remission of stamp duty and registration fees in terms of a notification dated 23rd March, 2012 issued by the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Finance Department (Revenue) in exercise of the power conferred under Section 9(1)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Section 78 of the Registration Act, 1908 contending, inter alia, that they purchased their respective apartments by registered deeds of conveyance executed by the vendor, namely, West Bengal Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and that as the Board is a statutory authority under the State Government and has transferred the apartments in question upon receiving the consideration amount, the respective deeds of conveyance come within the purview of the said notification.

(2.) The learned Single Judge by a composite order dated 10th February, 2016 upheld the contention of the writ petitioners and directed the State and its agencies to forthwith ensure that the benefits under the said notification are made available to each set of the writ petitioners in respect of the deeds of conveyance. Upon consideration of an indenture dated 2nd August, 2005, a development agreement dated 15th February, 2006 and a deed of conveyance dated 20th April, 2013, the learned Single Judge observed that "since it is the Housing Board which has sold the flats and the proportionate areas of land to the several sets of petitioners herein and the Housing Board is, unquestionably, an authority under the State government or an undertaking of the State government, the benefit of payment of reduced stamp duty under the notification of March 23, 2012 has to be extended to all the petitioners without exception".

(3.) Mr. Majumder, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants submits that the Single Judge ought to have ascertained the true nature of the transactions upon ensuring the presence of the Board. Not a single penny was paid to the Board as consideration money for the said sale and as such the purchase made by the writ petitioners cannot come within the purview of the notification dated 23rd March, 2012. From the transactions, not a single farthing was earned by the Board or the State. There was no conferment of ownership upon the Board and it did not acquire any title over the said property and in such circumstances the learned Single Judge ought to have applied the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Vodafone International Holdings B.V. -vs- Union of India & Anr ., reported in (2012) 6 SCC 613.