Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: V.N.DEVADOSS in Rajshree Nirman Private Limited Deoria vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 February, 2024Matching Fragments
8. Challenging the order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has purchased the property in auction through the Court, and therefore, he is liable to pay Stamp Duty on the actual sale consideration and not the market value. It is submitted that since the sale has been effected through Court, therefore, there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to defraud the revenue authority, and thus, the order impugned cannot be sustained in law. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of V.N. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-Cum-Ins. and others, 2009 (4) AWC 3423 (SC).
10. Be that as it may, the Apex Court in paragraph Nos.8 to 12 in the case of V.N. Devadoss (supra) has held as under:
"8. In the instant case the factual orders scenario shows that the vendors of the appellant i.e. M/s Dunlop India Limited became a sick industry and was declared so under the provisions of 1985 Act. Consequent upon such declaration, surplus properties and assets belonging to the said company were disposed of on the basis of passed by B.I.F.R. and A.I.F.R. by forming an Assets Sales Committee. The appellant submitted that his tender alongwith others and his offer of Rs.24.34 crores approximately was the highest, and the same was accepted by the Assets Sales Committee and also by the statutory authorities. The company was granted permission to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant.
11. Reading of the aforesaid paragraphs discloses that the controversy in hand is covered by Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of V.N. Devadoss (supra), therefore, the ground on which the Collector, Stamp has determined the stamp duty is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the orders impugned are set aside.
12. In such view of the fact, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
13. Any amount deposited pursuant to the order passed by this Court shall be refunded to the petitioner along with 6% simple interest within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.