Sachin Udyognagar Sahakari Mandali ... vs State Of Gujarat & on 17 October, 2014

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Gujarat High Court

Sachin Udyognagar Sahakari Mandali ... vs State Of Gujarat & on 17 October, 2014

Bench: Abhilasha Kumari

          C/SCA/2018/2014                             ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2018 of 2014
================================================================
     SACHIN UDYOGNAGAR SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED....Petitioner(s)
                             Versus
               STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT V THAKKAR, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAKESH PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No.1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
================================================================
          CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA
                 KUMARI

                            Date : 17/10/2014
                             ORAL ORDER

1. This petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned notice bearing No.Stamp/Value/REG/484/13, dated 31.08.2013, issued by respondent No.2Deputy Collector, Surat, on several grounds, as mentioned in the memorandum of the petition.

2. After issuance of notice, respondent No.2 has filed an affidavitinreply, in which it is stated as below :

"8. From the communication dated 24.03.2014, as it clearly appears that the Deputy Collector Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/2018/2014 ORDER stamp duty has clarified that valuation of the sale deed bearing number 10588 has been valuated by mistake. Annexure with respect to the above referred sale deed, requisite stamp duty has already been paid by the petitioner. Here to annex and mark as "ANNEXURE R3" is the copy of the communication dated 24.03.2014.

9. In the above circumstances, therefore, since the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty has already clarified the position with respect to Stamp Duty nothing however is required to be done by the present respondent no.2. Hence, the present respondent no.2 will withdraw the impugned notice dated 31.08.2013."

2. As seen in the above extract of the affidavitin reply, the stand of respondent No.2 is that the impugned notice has been issued to the petitioner by mistake and no stamp duty is to be paid by him.

3. On 16.10.2014, time was granted to Mr.Rakesh Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, in order to take instructions. Pursuant thereto, the learned Assistant Government Pleader states that the impugned notice has been withdrawn vide communication dated 09.10.2014. A copy of the said communication is taken Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/2018/2014 ORDER on the record of the petition.

4. In view of the fact that the impugned notice has been withdrawn by respondent No.2, it is stated by Mr.Amit V. Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner that the present petition no longer survives, therefore, the same may be disposed of, accordingly.

5. Taking into consideration the above statements made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, nothing further survives in the petition, which stands disposed of.

6. Notice is discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs.

(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) Gaurav+ Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court