Allahabad High Court
M/S S.D. Agro Farming Private Limited vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 20 December, 2024
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 1 Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:199379 Judgment Reserved on 10.12.2024 Judgment delivered on 20.12.2024 Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9488 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S S.D. Agro Farming Private Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Swapnil Kumar,Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, along with Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Siddharth Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of this writ petition, the following prayer has been made:-
"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.07.2021 passed by the Assistant Collector/Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District- Amroha in Case No. D201913380000812 (State Vs. M/s. Agro Farming Private Limited), under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj in Revision No. 1898 of 2021, Computerized Case No.AL20211338001598 (M/s. S.D. Agro Farming Private Limited Vs. State of U.P.), under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to open the seal of the premises of the petitioner's plot which has been seized for recovery of the demand in question.
III. ............
IV. .............. "
3. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1990, the Uttar Pradsesh State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'UPSIDC') allotted plot No.A-6/II area 22711 Sq. meter situated at Industrial Area Gajraula-II, District- Amroha in favour of M/s. S.S. Drugs Private Limited. In the year 1997, the first allotte namely M/s. S.S. Drugs Private Limited took loan from the Bank to clear the allotment premium of UPSIDC, but being failed to clear the same within time, the Bank initiated proceeding to recover the due amount by moving an Original Application No 392 of 1997 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi, which was allowed and plot in question was put for auction to recover the loan amount. On 30.08.2013, the petitioner participated in the auction proceedings conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi and his bid was accepted and the auction was confirmed confirmed later on 30.08.2013. Pursuant to which, sale confirmation letter dated 30.08.2013 was issued.
4. Thereafter, on the basis of sale certificate, an application was moved for mutation in the revenue record and after receipt of the same by the UPSIDC, it sought opinion whether lease deed can be registered at the stamp of Rs. 100/- as the deed of plot had already been registered. Opinion was received vide letter dated 17.03.2017 and pursuant to which, an application was moved by the petitioner on 20.03.2017 before the Regional Manager, UPSIDC with a request was made to accept the stamp duty @ 7% i.e. Rs. 6,99,000/- on ten time lease rent i.e. Rs. 8,06,225/- plus transfer levy Rs. 91,78,263/-.
5. Thereafter, UPSIDC executed the lease deed in favour of the petitioner on 23.03.2017 by accepting the aforesaid application, which was duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar concerned.
6. Thereafter, a report being prepared by the Sub-registrar concerned, was sent to the Assistant Inspector General Registration (Stamp), Amroha and proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to which a notice was issued to the petitioner, who submitted its reply/objection, but not being satisfied from the same, an order dated 31.07.2021 was passed by respondent no.3 holding the deficiency of stamp duty amounting to Rs. 78,77,750/- as well as penalty of the same amount against which the petitioner preferred a revision and the revisional authority vide order dated 01.03.2023 reduced the penalty from Rs. 78,77,750/- to Rs. 7,87,775/- whereas the deficiency of stamp duty was confirmed. Hence the present petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has purchased the land in question from the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi and the sale certificate was issued thereafter and therefore, the petitioner is legally entitled for remission of the stamp duty in terms of the Government Notification dated 30.03.2015 read with Government Order dated 15.06.2016 and as such, the proceedings under Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 confirmed by the impugned orders, are bad.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Notification dated 30.03.2015 cannot be permitted to dilute, alter or modified by Government Order dated 15.06.2016 issued by the Chief Secretary.
9. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be treated as a second/subsequent allottee as the petitioner, for the first time, purchased the land in question from the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi; in other words, the land in question was never allotted by the earlier allottee i.e Sri S.S. Drugs Private Limited.
10. He further submits that the lease deed was executed by UPSIDC for the balanced period of 63 years and therefore, in view of Section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, all subsequent deeds are liable to be stamped only at the stamp of Rs. 5.
11. He next submits that the provision of Clause 3 (iv) of the G.O. dated 15.06.2016 is not applicable in the present case as the land in question has never been allotted/sold/transferred by M/s. S.S. Drugs Private Limited, but the same was executed for the first time in favor of the petitioner by UPSIDC and therefore, Notification dated 30.03.2015 is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
12. He further submits that the authority has misdirected itself from not granting remission as per Notification dated 30.03.2015. He further submits that in the impugned order, the submission of the petitioner's with regard to the applicability of Section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 has been raised, but no finding has been recorded whatsoever.
13. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of of Division Bench of this Court delivered in the case of M/s. Smart Chip Ltd., and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2003 AIR (ALD) 80 as well as in the case of M/s. Polyplex Corporation Ltd. Vs. Joint Secy., Finance and Others (Writ Tax No.1165 of 2012), decided on 28.04.2014.
14. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents supports the impugned order. He prays for dismissal of this writ petition and submits that the petitioner is not a first allottee of the plot in question and therefore, the levy of stamp duty has rightly been imposed upon him. He further submits that the petitioner purchased the land in question from the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi and therefore, the petitioner became the second lease deed holder, as such, the aforesaid government orders referred here-in-above dated 15.06.2016 read with Notification dated 30.03.2015 will be put to service and the petitioner will not be entitled for any remission as claimed herein.
15. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that no pleadings have been raised by the petitioner either before the authority below or even before this Court as to the applicability of Section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 which was argued at the time of final argument, which can't be considered. Once the petitioner in his wisdom does not choose to challenge the finding with regard to non-discussion of Section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by the court below, will not be entitled him to press the said grounds at the time of hearing without any pleadings.
16. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the authorities have proceeded pursuant to the Government Order dated 15.06.2016 read with Notification dated 30.03.2015 dis-entitle the petitioner from any remission but there is no pleadings with regard to the same in any of the paragraphs of the writ petitions has been made, rather the factual narration has been mentioned in the writ petition, but specific finding recorded against the petitioner is not challenged and therefore, the impugned order cannot be set aside.
17. To the said submission made here-in-above by the Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is incorrect on the part of the respondent authorities to submits that the provision of Section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act,1899 will not be applicable as in the case in hand, a fresh conveyance deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by UPSIDC and therefore, the stamp duty is liable to be paid by the petitioner. He further submits that the case in hand is squarely covered by the G.O. dated 15.06.2016 as admittedly, the petitioner is a second purchaser as it is evident from the record in hand showing that the earlier allottee namely M/s. S.S. Drugs Private Limited could not run the factory for some reason or other and therefore, it was auctioned by Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi and the petitioner admittedly has purchased the same in an auction. Once, the petitioner has admittedly purchased the property, may be from the bank, but not directly from M/s. S.S. Drugs Private Limited, then the sale consideration on the sale of the property will pass on either to clear the dues/loan on M/s. S.S. Drugs Private Limited (the first alottee by UPSIDC) and therefore, the remission of stamp duty through G.O. dated 15.06.2016 as well as Notification dated 30.03.2015 is of no aid to him.
18. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.
19. Bare perusal of the aforesaid notification issued by the by the State Government shows that the notification does not bear word i.e. re-allotment and every word used in the said notification has its own importance. It had the word re-allotment mentioned, then the petitioner has a case. Further, the Government Order dated 15.06.2016 is only an order which is clarificatory in nature, clarifying the above notifications.
20. In the case in hand, it is an admitted between the parties that the petitioner is not a original allottee, but a subsequent allottee, which is also clear from the fact that the original allottee i.e. S.S. Drugs Private Limited was granted lease of 99 years whereas the petitioner is only entitled for lease of the balanced period and not for the period of full lease years, but only of 63 years and therefore, in absence of word re-allotment in Notification dated 30.03.2015, the benefit has rightly been denied to the petitioner. Further, since the subsequent G.O. dated 15.06.2016 being clarificatory in nature, clarifying the Notification dated 30.03.2015, it cannot be said to be overriding or diluting Notification dated 30.03.2015 and therefore, the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner is of no aid to him.
21. Further, much emphasis has been laid upon Section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act and tried to emphasize that for completing the transactions, the documents have been executed and therefore, only principal instrument is liable for full charge of stamp duty and the subsequent will not be. Therefore, the said submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. The simple reason is that the original lease deed was executed to a different identity namely S.S. Drugs Private Limited whereas the petitioner's lease has been executed in its favour who is a subsequent buyer with a different identity and as such there is no co-relation between the first lessor and the subsequent lessor i.e. the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that subsequent instrument, just with a view to complete the transactions merely because the lease period is fixed for 99 years, will not entitle the petitioner to raise an argument to complete the transaction to the subsequent lease granted in its favour which is not in continuation with the first lease deed.
22. In view of the facts as stated above, the impugned orders do not call for any interference by this Court.
23. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.12.2024 Pravesh Mishra/-