Gujarat High Court
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) ... vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 20 January, 2016
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/SCA/429/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 429 of 2016
==========================================================
ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED & 1....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS VD NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
MR SWAPNESHWAR GOUTAM, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 20/01/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr.S.N.Shelat, learned Senior Counsel with Mrs.V.D.Nanavati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Swapneshwar Goutam, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for its final disposal forthwith. Rule. Learned AGP waives Rule for the respondents.
3. The noteworthy facts, which can be culled out from the record of the petition are as under:-
3.1 That petitioner No.1 is a Company duly registered under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act" for short). Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2015 passed by Collector and Additional Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Thu Jan 21 01:58:27 IST 2016 C/SCA/429/2016 ORDER Superintendent of Stamps, Gandhinagar, filed an appeal as provided under Section 53(1) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) within the statutory time limit as provided under Section 53(1) of the Act, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2015 by respondent No.2-Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, on the sole ground that the requirements of Section 53(1)(b) of the act have not been complied with.
3.2 Thereafter, on basis of the order in origin, the petitioners have been served with the demand notice dated 18.11.2015 and hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset, submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit 25% amount as provided under Section 53(1)(b) of the Act. It was further contended that the impugned order dated 18.11.2015 has been passed without any prior notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners, in fact, had no opportunity to make good the statutory requirements of Section 53(1)(b) of the Act.
5. In order to examine the sole ground which goes to the root of the impugned order, learned AGP for the respondents authorities was asked to take specific instructions in the matter and upon instructions, learned AGP has submitted that no hearing was provided to the petitioners and the impugned order has been passed under Section 53(1)(b) of the Act.
6. On that short ground, the impugned order dated Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Thu Jan 21 01:58:27 IST 2016 C/SCA/429/2016 ORDER 18.11.2015 deserves to be quashed and the proceedings of Appeal No.200 of 2015 deserves to be remanded back to the Appellate Authority i.e. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State, on condition that the petitioners shall deposit 25% amount as provided under Section 53(1)(b) of the Act. At this stage, Mr.Shelat, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kissan Gramodyog Sansthan & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur [(2015) 10 SCC 629] and contended that the under the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Apex Court has restored the appeal on condition that the appellant would make pre-deposit amount.
7. Accordingly, the order dated 18.11.2015 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside without expressing any opinion on merits of the appeal on condition that the petitioners shall deposit 25% amount involved in the appeal as pre-deposit as provided under Section 53(1)(b) of the Act by way of demand draft, latest by 25th January, 2016. The Appellate Authority shall accept the pre-deposit amount deposited by the petitioners, which is statutory requirements as per the provisions of the Act.
8. In light of the fact that the appeal was otherwise filed by the petitioners within statutory time limit, the Appellate Authority shall hear the appeal on merits. In light of the fact that the order dated 18.11.2015 is quashed and the proceedings of Appeal No.200 of 2015 are restored to the file of the Appellate Authority, all consequential orders are also hereby quashed and set Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Thu Jan 21 01:58:27 IST 2016 C/SCA/429/2016 ORDER aside. Even at the cost of repetition, it goes without saying that the proceedings are remanded only on the sole ground as observed hereinabove, the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal on its own merits without in any manner being influenced by the observations made in this order.
For the foregoing, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) Suchit Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Thu Jan 21 01:58:27 IST 2016