Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Nrbr Hospitality vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 January, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 25 th OF JANUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1432 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
M/S NRBR HOSPITALITY REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP
FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR.
DARSHANLAL GOYAL 7/B, GREATER BRAJESHWARI,
NEAR AGARWAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR (COLONY CELL) INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR OF STAMPS COLLECTORATE,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJWARDHAN GAWDE, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Collector of Stamps, whereby an order has been passed under Section Article 49-B of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 by treating the retirement partnership deed dated 24.03.2021 as convinced and issued demand of Rs.14,56,040/- with penalty of Rs.9,02,745/-.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 1/29/2024 7:14:57 PM 202. Shri Munshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Authority has not properly examined the provisions of Article 49-B of the Indian Stamps Act while demanding the stamp duty.
03. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent submits that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
04. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for filing of appeal, there is prerequisite condition of deposit of 25% of the demand, only then interpretation of Article 49-B of the Indian Stamps Act is required, for which High Court is the competent Court to give proper interpretation.
05. The aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are hereby rejected. When alternative remedy of appeal is provided under proviso
(d) to Section 40(1) of the Indian Stamps Act, then there is no reason to entertain the writ petition directly. The Appellate Authority is also competent to given interpretation of Article 49-B of the Indian Stamps Act and also to examine the validity of order passed by the subordinate authority. Since the statute provides for pre-deposit, therefore, writ petition is not liable to be entertained only on the ground that there is a requirement of deposit of the court fee or some part of the demand. The writ petition is not liable to be entertained to bypass such statutory requirement which has been provided in validly enacted statute. No case for interference is made out in the matter.
06. Writ Petition stands dismissed with liberty to avail the remedy available under the law.
(VIVEK RUSIA) Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 1/29/2024 7:14:57 PM 3 JUDGE Ravi Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 1/29/2024 7:14:57 PM