Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 46 (ALL)

TATA TELE SERVICES LTD. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2006-01-05

SUSHIL HARKAULI, VIKRAM NATH

body2006
JUDGMENT By the Court—We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. Having regard to the fact that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 30.9.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division has been filed in this petition, we are of the opinion that relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this case are not in dispute and therefore it is not necessary to grant time for filing counter affidavit. In fact it would not be in the interest of State also to delay the matter by calling for counter affidavit. 3. The petitioner is a Telecom Service Provider. For the purpose of providing the service the petitioner claims that he takes empty roof top spaces of buildings on licence for installing transmitter towers. The respondents gave one common show cause notice alleging with regard to 17 such transactions that the instruments of the licence were legally to be treated as instruments of lease and accordingly the deficiency of stamp duty and penalty was imposed upon the petitioner in respect of the 17 transactions by a common order. Against that common order the petitioner preferred a revision No. 77 of 2004-05 under Section 56(i) of the Stamp Act before the respondent No. 3 along with an application for interim stay of recovery. 4. According to the petitioner the stay application was not being considered and therefore the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition No. 45592 of 2005 which was disposed of by the order dated 15.6.2005 requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,31,300/- within ten days and upon such deposit the prayer for stay of remaining amount payable under the order impugned in the revision was to be considered within three months. Accordingly, steps for recovery were stayed for the period of three months subject to the petitioner depositing the aforesaid amount. According to the petitioner the said amount was deposited well within the time fixed by the Court and the application for interim relief was pressed before the Commissioner, Meerut Division. 5. By the impugned order dated 30.9.2005 the Commissioner, Meerut Division, has dismissed the revision of the petitioner on the ground that because there were 17 cases relating to 17 different transactions therefore 17 separate revisions should have been filed by the petitioner. 6. 5. By the impugned order dated 30.9.2005 the Commissioner, Meerut Division, has dismissed the revision of the petitioner on the ground that because there were 17 cases relating to 17 different transactions therefore 17 separate revisions should have been filed by the petitioner. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, is hyper technical. Considering the fact that a common show cause notice was given and a common order was passed, even if, technically 17 revisions were required to be filed, in our opinion, it was not open to the Commissioner to refuse adjudication on merits because of this technicality. If any Court fee was payable on the memo of revision and on the application for interim relief, at best the Commissioner could have required the petitioner to pay 17 times Court fee payable on a single memo of revision and on a single stay application and then the Commissioner should have proceeded to consider the application for interim relief or revision itself on merits with regard to all such transactions. 7. In the circumstances, we allow this writ petition and set aside the order dated 30.9.2005, directing the Commissioner to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with above observations. The application for interim relief will be considered by the Commissioner within two months of the date on which a certified copy of this order is presented before him provided such copies are presented before him within 15 days from today. Till the application for interim relief is considered and disposed of, further recovery from the petitioner under the order challenged in the revision, will remain stayed. It is clarified that we have not examined the merits of adjudication by the Assistant Collector and therefore all the objections with regard to the merits will remain open before the Commissioner, Meerut Division. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the parties on payment of requisite charges within 48 hours. Petition Allowed. ———