Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Thro.The Under ... vs Adani Enterprises Limited "Adani ... on 11 September, 2014
Author: Vijay Manohar Sahai
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai
C/LPA/888/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 888 of 2014
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5633 of 2007
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9100 of 2014
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 888 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made
thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT THRO.THE UNDER SECRETARY & 1....Appellant(s)
Versus
ADANI ENTERPRISES LIMITED "ADANI HOUSE"....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR. KASHYAP PUJARA,
AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 2
MR B. H. CHATRAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR SINGHI & CO, ADVOCATE for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
Page 1 of 4
C/LPA/888/2014 JUDGMENT
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 11/09/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI)
1. The appellants have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the common judgment and order dated 16.02.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4259 of 2007 and other allied matters.
2. The short facts are that the respondent herein executed a Debenture Trust Deed (hereinafter referred to as 'the instrument' for short) dated 7th July 2000 with UTI Bank Limited. Before the execution of the instrument, the respondent made an application before the Collector & Additional Superintendent of Stamps (hereinafter referred to as the Collector of Stamps' for short) under Section 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for adjudication of proper stamp duty leviable under the provisions of the Act. The Collector of Stamps determined the stamp duty leviable at Rs.2,60,100/. On adjudication of stamp duty by the Collector of Stamps, the respondent herein paid the said amount as determined by the Collector of Stamps. Hence, the Collector of Stamps issued a certificate dated 07.07.2000 under Section 32 of the Act regarding full payment of the stamp duty leviable which is stated in para 5.3 of the writ petition. However, after a lapse of more than 6 years, appellant No.2 issued a notice dated 05.01.2007 under Section 53(1) of the Act.
2.1. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice, the respondent preferred a writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge, vide common judgment and order dated 16.02.2010, allowed the writ petition. Hence, present appeal.
Page 2 of 4C/LPA/888/2014 JUDGMENT
3. We have heard Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Kashyap Pujara, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. B. H. Chatrapati, learned counsel for Singhi & Co. for the respondent.
4. It is not necessary for us to go into the merit of the case in view of the fact that the notice dated 05.01.2007 under Section 53(1) of the Act was issued beyond the maximum prescribed period of ninety days as provided under Section 53(1) of the Act and even beyond the maximum prescribed period of six years as provided under Section 53(A) of the Act from the date of issuance of certificate of the Collector of Stamps under Section 32 of the Act and there is no other provision by which the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 53(A) or under Section 53(1) of the Act can be enhanced.
5. The notice dated 05.01.2007, which is annexed with the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State Government is stated to have been issued under Section 53(A) of the Act. However, Mr. Pujara, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant has fairly stated that the original notice was issued under Section 53(1) of the Act. Even in the impugned judgment also it is mentioned that the notices were issued under Section 53(1) of the Act. In the case of issuance of notice under section 53(A) of the Act, for invoking the powers of taking the matter under suo motu revision, the limitation prescribed is six years from the date of issuance of certificate of the Collector u/ss. 32, 32A, 39 or 41, as the case may be, whereas in a notice under Section 53(1) of the Act the period of limitation prescribed is 90 days. In either case the notice was issued beyond the maximum prescribed period of six years. Therefore, it will make no difference whether the notice was issued under Section 53(1) of the Act or under Section 53(A) of the Act. However, since in the impugned order it has been mentioned that the notice has been issued Page 3 of 4 C/LPA/888/2014 JUDGMENT u/s. 53(1) of the Act and as the learned counsel for the respondent also placed before us the photo copy of the original notice, we treat all the notices issued by the appellants under Section 53(1) of the Act.
6. Since the notice dated 05.01.2007 has been issued beyond the maximum prescribed period of six years from the date of certificate dated 07.07.2000 certifying the full payment of the stamp duty leviable issued by the Collector of Stamps, no further action of taking the matter under revision can be taken by the appellant No.2 herein as the period for taking action has become time barred. As stated above, there is no other provision by which the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 53(A) or under Section 53(1) of the Act can be enhanced.
7. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this Letters Patent Appeal and the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed on this short ground alone.
8. In view of the dismissal of the main appeal today, the civil application does not survive and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
(V.M.SAHAI, J.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) Jani Page 4 of 4