Gujarat High Court
Raj Mohanbhai Bhavani vs State Of Gujarat Through Chief ... on 12 June, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 GUJ 366
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
C/SCA/13433/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13433 of 2018
================================================================
RAJ MOHANBHAI BHAVANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF CONTROLLER REVENUE
OFFICER & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS KJ BRAHMBHATT(202) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS VARSHA BRAHMBHATT(3145) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
POOJA H BHARDWAJ(7844) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN N SHAH, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 12/06/2019
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 01.03.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 - the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and the order dated 14.03.2017 passed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Evaluation Department. The subject matter of the petition is pertaining to Stamp Duty paid under the provisions of Gujarat Stamp Act.
2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order, an error is committed by treating the Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 06:36:46 IST 2019 C/SCA/13433/2018 ORDER application filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Chief Controlling Officer dated 18.03.2017 by which the petitioner is called upon to pay additional Stamp Duty.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has paid the entire Stamp Duty including the additional Stamp Duty demanded. However, the same was paid 'Under Protest' and thereafter, filed a Revision Application under Section 53 before the Chief Controlling Officer.
4. It is submitted that the application was filed under Section 53 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Act'). The respondent No.1 has erroneously treated the application to be an application for refund under Section 44 of the Stamp Act and thereafter, considering the period of limitation provided to be of three months, rejected the application on the ground of delay. It is submitted that an error is committed by treating the application to be an application under Section 44 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid arguments, the petitioner seeks remand of the case to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration.
Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 06:36:46 IST 2019 C/SCA/13433/2018 ORDER
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader opposes the grant of petition submitting that provision itself provides for a period of limitation and as the application even if is to be treated as an application under Section 53 of the Act, the application filed before the respondent No.1 is time barred. He thereafter, relies upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jayminbhai Navinbhai Doshi and Others v. State of Gujarat reported in 2015 1 G.L.H. 167.
6. Having heard rival submissions and having considered the documents on record, the order of respondent No.2 - Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Evaluation Department dated 14.03.2017 for payment of additional amount of stamp duty, though not on record but admittedly paid by the petitioner and receipt of which is at Annexure 'B' as per the valuation carried out by the respondent No.2, the stamp duty was valued at Rs.7,35,68,000.00 as against Rs.3,67,80,000.00 paid by the petitioner at the time of registration. The additional amount is also deposited by the petitioner and the documents came to be released. This entire procedure took place on 14.03.2017 and thereafter, on 08.01.2018, an application purportedly under Section 53 is filed by the petitioner before the Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 06:36:46 IST 2019 C/SCA/13433/2018 ORDER respondent No.1 - the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Such an application was received on 10.01.2018. Even if the application is treated to be an application under Section 53, still considering Section 53(a), the period prescribed is that of 90 days. The proviso to Section 53(a) of the Act provides that power to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to extend the period of limitation by a further period of 90 days upon being satisfied regarding the ground of delay.
7. This Court in the case of Jayminbhai Navinbhai Doshi and Others (supra) has held that where the period of limitation is prescribed, even the High Court cannot condone such delay in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, beyond the period of 90 days, there is no objection to condone the delay. Hence, submission of learned Advocate even if accepted that the impugned order is passed in an application as if such an application is under Section 44 of the Stamp Act and that the application filed infact by the petitioner is under Section 53 will not take the petitioner any further in view of delay of more than 90 days after the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Evaluation Department.
Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 06:36:46 IST 2019 C/SCA/13433/2018 ORDER
8. Even from the pleadings before this Court, no ground is coming out to condone the delay. Over and above, if the prayer clause of the petitioner before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is considered, to the Court it appears to be in the nature of a Refund Application. Hence, also no interference is called for.
9. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.
Sd/-
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) Caroline Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 06:36:46 IST 2019