Allahabad High Court
Guljeet Singh Kochhar vs State Of U.P. And Others on 14 July, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32010 of 2012 Petitioner :- Guljeet Singh Kochhar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Kant Mishra,Manish Goyal,Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 55266 of 2013 Heard Sri Ashok Tripathi learned counsel holding brief of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
In view of the controversy being clear as to challenge raised in the writ petition, the amendment sought may be treated to have been allowed.
Application stands disposed of.
Order on petition Heard Sri Ashok Tripathi learned counsel holding brief of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
Present writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 20.1.2010 passed by the Additional Collector, Ghaziabad in Stamp Case No. 73/2008-09 under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the appeal order dated 06.6.2012 passed by the CCRA rejecting the Stamp Appeal No. 16 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.1.2010. Thus, deficient stamp duty Rs. 47,20,000/- and penalty Rs. 80,000/- has been confirmed.
Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, there is no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the reference was made only for the purpose of assessing deficiency of stamp duty, if any, on the structure and machinery obtaining on the plot leased out to the petitioner being plot No. 8/6D Industrial Area Site 4, Sahibabad, district Ghaziabad inasmuch as the reference appears to disclose fact allegations of under valuation both of the lease deed and valuation of the structures and machineries etc. The report made to the Assistant Collector apart, the reference appears to have been drawn both with respect to under valuation of the lease deed for the purpose of payment of stamp duty and also to determine the under valuation of the deed with respect to structures and machinery etc. To that extent, the challenge raised in the writ petition must fail.
However, it does merit acceptance that in valuing the lease deed and in determining the deficient stamp duty of Rs. 47,20,000/- wholly vague and nebulous facts have been relied. No exemplar deed or other credible material has been referred to either in the report made by the Tehsildar or in the impugned orders as may allow this Court to sustain the determination of deficient stamp duty of Rs. 47,20,000/-. A general opinion has been expressed by the Tehsildar without referring to any material to sustain the value of the leased property of Rs. Five Crore.
Also, it has been strenuously urged that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity of hearing before such valuation was determined.
In view of such facts, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Both the impugned orders are accordingly set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent No. 3 to pass fresh order after hearing the petitioner and allowing him opportunity to lead evidence to establish the true value of the property on the date of execution of the said deed dated 29.3.2004. It would be open to the revenue authorities to also rely such material as they may be advised to determine the value of the property on the date of its transfer.
Present petition accordingly stands disposed of. Any amount deposited may abide by the order passed in remand.
Order Date :- 14.7.2022 Faraz