Kamini Construction vs State of U.P.

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Adeel Ahmad Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.P. Singh Kachhwah, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Azad Khan holding brief of Sri Q.H. Siddiqui for respondent No. 2. The question involved in this petition is regarding stamp duty to be charged on security deposit under the Stamp Act. This question has been considered in detail by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 35096 of 2004 (M/s. Strong Construction v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 22.3.2005 along with 91 other connected petitions.

In view of aforesaid, the respondents are directed not to compel the petitioners to pay stamp duty on security deposit in question treating it as "mortgage deed" and to charge stamp duty on such security as provided under Article 57(b) of Schedule 1-B of the Indian Stamp Act.

The writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicates above. However, it is clarified that this order is applicable only in those cases where the stamp duty is being asked on the security amount and not in any other case. It is further made clear that the payment of stamp duty as directed above shall be subject to final decision of Special Leave Petition No. 8245 of 2005 (State of U.P. v. M/s. Strong Construction) said to be pending before the Supreme Court against the Division Bench decision of this Court dated 22.3.2005 passed in the case of M/s. Strong Construction referred above.