Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1965 (ALL)

Harbir Singh v. Addl. Commissioner

2017-08-24

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : B. Amit Sthalekar, J. Heard Sri Prateek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the orders dated 12.3.2003 and 23.8.2001 passed in proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for deficiency of stamp duty. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a shop measuring 14.58 sq. m. which is a part of the property no.20 situated in Kalyan Nagar Meerut through a registered sale deed dated 22.1.1999 for a consideration of Rs. 25,800/-. On an allegation that there was deficiency of stamp duty proceedings under the Act were initiated. The petitioner filed his objections. Thereafter the Stamp Authority by his order dated 23.8.2001 determined the value of the property at Rs. 54,080/- and stamp duty payable at Rs. 5400/- and the deficiency of stamp duty has been determined at Rs. 900/- plus penalty of Rs. 670/- plus deficiency of registration charges at Rs. 180/- total Rs. 1750/-. Aggrieved by this order the State filed a revision and the Additional Commissioner/Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Meerut Division, Meerut set a side the order of the Stamp Authority dated 23.8.2001 and determined the deficiency of stamp duty at Rs. 12,550/- plus registration charges at Rs. 2,510/-, penalty at Rs. 12,550/-, total Rs. 27,610/-. 4. The submission of Sri Prateek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased two properties. One facing Kalan Nagar and the other facing Garh Road. The plot was the same. So far as the property situated facing Garh Road is concerned, there is no dispute and stamp duty has been paid at the rate as applicable to Garh Road, Meerut. 5. His further contention is that for the property facing Kalyan Nagar also, the rate as applicable to Garh Road has been applied which is not correct first, because the rate applicable to Kalyan Nagar is different and secondly even though the purchaser is the same, one property being a shop is facing Kalyan Nagar while the other property is facing Garh Road and, therefore, a single rate as applicable to Garh Road cannot be applied to the property situated in Kalyan Nagar area. 6. 6. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has, however, held that since the petitioner has purchased a part of the property no.20 and several other persons have also purchased other parts of the property no.20 collectively on the same date, therefore, there is a likelihood that the property facing Kalyan Nagar area would be used through the property facing Garh Road and that the entrance to the Kalyan Nagar property would be, therefore, through the property facing Garh Road. 7. This finding, in my opinion, is based on mere assumption and in the absence of any finding that on spot inspection it was found that the properties were inter connected and that movement in respect of the property facing Kalyan Nager would be through the property facing Garh Road cannot be accepted. It is wholly irrelevant that the vendor of two properties are real brothers. The fact of the matter remains that for that two properties which have been purchased by the petitioner through sale deeds one facing Garh Road and other facing Kalayan Nagar, there are different circle rates for Garh Road and Kalyan Nagar, therefore, the property which is situated at Kalyan Nagar cannot be held to be liable to stamp duty at rates applicable to the property at Garh Road on a mere assumption that the purchaser may use two properties through Garh Road. 8. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders dated 12.3.2003 and 23.8.2001 are absolutely illegal and arbitrary and are accordingly set aside. 9. The writ petition is allowed. 10. The matter is remitted to respondent no.1, Additional Commissioner/Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Meerut Division, Meerut to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made above and thereafter compute deficiency of stamp duty, if any. 11. This exercise shall be completed by the respondent no.1 within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office.