Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 973 (GUJ)

Nagjibhai Govindbhai Narola v. State of Gujarat

2014-09-01

R.P.DHOLARIA, V.M.SAHAI

body2014
JUDGMENT : R.P. DHOLARIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Samir Afzal Khan for the appellant. Admit. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Vishal Patel waives service of notice of admission on the respondents. At the request of learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 16th July 2014 passed in Special Civil Applications No. 9207 to 9227 of 2014, the present appellant, being the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 9207 of 2014, has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. The main contention of the appellant is that the authorities under the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 found out the alleged deficit stamp duty, which was not paid while executing their respective sale deeds. Consequently, he was served with a notice for payment of deficit stamp duty. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice, the appellant has preferred a reference application before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Since 25% of deficit stamp duty was not paid, the said application was dismissed. Against the aforesaid order, previously Special Civil Applications No. 4482 to 4510 of 2009 were filed, of which Special Civil Application No. 4498 of 2009 was preferred by the appellant. In the Special Civil Applications, the learned Single Judge directed the appellate authority to decide the application on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by submitting written submissions. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority passed an order on 30th October 2009 as also in April 2014 rejecting the application without entering into the merits of the case as the appellant has not deposited any deficit stamp duty required to be deposited under section 53 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 to the extent of 25 per cent. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the aforesaid Special Civil Application was filed, wherein the learned Single Judge after hearing the respective parties was pleased to dismiss the same vide order dated 16th July 2014. Precisely this is the order under challenge before us. 6. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the aforesaid Special Civil Application was filed, wherein the learned Single Judge after hearing the respective parties was pleased to dismiss the same vide order dated 16th July 2014. Precisely this is the order under challenge before us. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, and on going through the entire record and proceedings, we are convinced that as there appears to be no provisions for absolute waiver of deposit of 25 per cent of the deficit stamp duty as demanded by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to entertain the aforesaid reference application, and consequently, he has therefore without entering into the merits of the case, straightway dismissed the aforesaid application presented before him. 7. It is explicitly clear from the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge that the present appellant is ready and willing to deposit the entire 25 per cent of the deficit stamp duty before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Vishal Patel urged on behalf of the respondents that since the dispute is only with regard to deposit of 25 per cent of deficit stamp duty for hearing the application, and the appellant is ready and willing to pay 25 per cent of the deficit stamp duty, he need not file any counter affidavit, and the Court may remand the matter back. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Samir Afzal Khan has also stated before us that the appellant is ready and willing to deposit 25 per cent of the deficit stamp duty leviable upon the instrument. In this view of the matter, as the reference application is already preferred before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, which came to be dismissed thrice, the interest of justice would be served if the aforesaid reference application along with any representations may be considered on merit by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority on the condition to deposit 25 per cent of the deficit stamp duty by the appellant within a period of one month from today. 10. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th July 2014 as well as the orders passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in the matter are quashed and set aside. 10. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th July 2014 as well as the orders passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in the matter are quashed and set aside. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority shall decide the reference application after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant including adducing any evidence, if he so wishes. Any observation made by us in this judgment and order shall not be binding on the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and the authority shall decide the matter on its own merits. Direct service is permitted. Appeal allowed.