Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007
4. Controverting the submissions made by learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon
judgments of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and others v.
Khandaka Jain Jewellers, (2007) 14 SCC 339, State of Haryana
and others v. Manoj Kumar, (2010) 4 SCC 350 and judgment of this
Court in Iqbal Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2010 P&H
130 to contend that it is on the date of registration when the sale deed
is presented, the valuation has to be seen by the authorities. The order
requiring the petitioner to pay the stamp duty being in consonance
thereto, no interference was, thus, called for.
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Manoj Kumar on 9 March, 2010
4. Controverting the submissions made by learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon
judgments of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and others v.
Khandaka Jain Jewellers, (2007) 14 SCC 339, State of Haryana
and others v. Manoj Kumar, (2010) 4 SCC 350 and judgment of this
Court in Iqbal Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2010 P&H
130 to contend that it is on the date of registration when the sale deed
is presented, the valuation has to be seen by the authorities. The order
requiring the petitioner to pay the stamp duty being in consonance
thereto, no interference was, thus, called for.
Section 3 in Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Iqbal Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 5 May, 2009
4. Controverting the submissions made by learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon
judgments of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and others v.
Khandaka Jain Jewellers, (2007) 14 SCC 339, State of Haryana
and others v. Manoj Kumar, (2010) 4 SCC 350 and judgment of this
Court in Iqbal Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2010 P&H
130 to contend that it is on the date of registration when the sale deed
is presented, the valuation has to be seen by the authorities. The order
requiring the petitioner to pay the stamp duty being in consonance
thereto, no interference was, thus, called for.
State Of Punjab & Others vs Parshotam Dass & Another on 2 August, 2010
5. After giving thoughtful consideration to the respective
submissions, I find that a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.890
of 2010, State of Punjab and others v. Parshotam Dass and another,
decided on 2.8.2010, while considering an issue relating to payment
of stamp duty on a transaction where the property had been sold by
auction by public body and the installments were paid in due course,
held that the stamp duty was payable on the price of the auction. The
relevant observations recorded therein read thus:-
1