The Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps, 8th floor, K.G.Road, Bangalore-560001
The Court had only directed to impound proper duty with penalty on 12/12/2017. The Court hadn't ordered any duty penalty. Means to impound only if its liable and if liable, the proper duty penalty. I had to prefer this appeal as the duty penalty impounded was Improper.
Since the Agreement is dt.2.1.1985 during which the guidance value wasn't their, as also confirmed by The Sub-Registrar, Bangarapet, in his letter dt:19.09.2019 addressed to the District Registrar, Kolar and confirmed by The District Registrar, Kolar in his letter dt : 04-11-2019 addressed to your kindself reports it. Means that their is no any specific stamping value, nor consideration of the rent amount for calculation from Annual AVERAGE rent, nor a table to calculate. The same year's sale-deed dt: 19.12.1984, figures and factors attached to this report of SUB-REG and D.R. do not specify any rate, guidance value or duty to be paid on the date but specifies only sale amount of Rs.8000/-.
The Supreme court in the orders of T.Mohan Vs Kannammal and anr, on 23/01/2002, in para 7 says / clarifies:
" We may clarify that the finding of the High Court that the agreement was insufficiently stamped is erroneous.
It is patent on a perusal of the relevant provisions in the Karnataka Taxation and Certain Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979 ( Karnataka Act no.21 of 1979) by which the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 ( Karnataka Act 34 of 1957) was amended and the schedule was substituted provided in Article 5 thereof that an agreement or memorandum of an agreement in respect of which no specific provision regarding the denomination of the stamp to be paid has been made, the requisite denomination of stamp would be Rs.5/- ." As such the Honorable Supreme Court says that it has pursued the relevant provisions of The Karnataka acts and said in general that it applies for agreement or memorandum of an agreement. Thereby their is no bifurcation of sale agreement, rental or lease agreement etc. As such agreement means all agreements and not the sale agreements only. Also if at-all any slab applies to a sale-agreement then why does it not apply to an rental-agreement when the Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar gives example of a sale- deed dt : 19-12-1984, to be considered for my Rental Agreement.
So it specifies that the clarification in the para-7 of the present citation applies for all agreements. As such Rs. 10/- paid by me is more than the Rs.5/-, which may be considered as duty and penalty is not liable to my Agreement.
Also the house rent payable by me is only Rs.400/- and not Rs.1000/- as considered by the Registrar. As such the duty penalty should have been calculated for Rs.400/- or Rs.600/- the difference of rent deducting the house rent of Rs. 400/- from shop rent of Rs.1000/- as in agreement. Also when properties are exchanged for rent, both the parties should be bear the duty - penalty. The difference of rent of Rs.600/- was paid by the 1st party to me only for 7 years from 1985 to 1992 until HRC 27/1992 and OS 772/1992 was filed. After 7 years their was no rent from 1992. As such the Registrar should have calculated for 7 years and that too only on Rs.400/- the house rent and not Rs.1000/- which was the shop rent, because the Registrar has wrongly considered to calculate.
Also the duty is calculated as "Average annual rent" meaning Rs 600/- * 12 months =Rs.7200 * 7 years = 50400/- which is again divided by 7 as its average annual rent i.e. / 7 = 7200 * 3 % = 216 - 10 = 206 + ( 206 * 10 times penalty) = RS.2266/- is the duty and penalty if calculated for Rs.600/- as rent and whereas for a rent of Rs.400/- its Rs.400/- * 12 months = Rs.4800/- * 7 years =33600/- again divided by 7 as it should be annual average rent = 4800 * 3 % = 144 - 10 ( paid duty) = 134 + 10 times penalty = 1340 + 134 = Rs.1434/- is the duty and penalty.
I do not find different acts for sale agreement and rental agreements.
As such considering all the above grounds i pray to waive off the duty penalty impounded by the District Registrar by setting aside the order passed on 05-04-2018 by Dist. Registrar (Stamping), Kolar, directing to calculate afresh, by reminding the matter by allowing this appeal and pass such other orders by tomorrow the 25-11-2019, so as to mark my Agreement in OS 116/2005 which is posted for arguements to 26-11-2019, without which i will be put to great hardship and loss, in the ends of justice equity and law.
RAMESH BABU T.R.
1. Order dt : 12-12-17
2. Two Rent receipts.
3. Orders in T. Mohan Vs Kannammal And Anr. on 23-1-2002 by Supreme Court of India.
The description given by you is so lengthy, please make it short and re-submit, as experts have no time to spare as this is free and charity work.