Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1551 (ALL)

PUSHPA SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-07-16

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Dubey, counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 2. The petitioner is the vendee in the sale deed dated 30.04.2014 executed in her favour whereby, amongst other plots, 1/5 share of plot no. 668 (total area 0.2140 hectare) was also sold to the petitioner. Subsequently, on report dated 28.03.2016 submitted by the concerned Sub-Registrar case no. D201514360031100/15 (State Vs. Pushpa Singh), under Section 33/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1899') was registered in the court of Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Jaunpur against the petitioner for alleged deficiency in payment of stamp duty. Notice in the aforesaid case was issued to the petitioner who appeared in the court and admitted her liability and agreed to pay the alleged deficiency. Consequently, relying on the report dated 28.03.2016 submitted by the Sub-Registrar, the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), District- Jaunpur passed an order dated 09.04.2016 calculating the deficiency as Rs. 1,59,400/- and consequential penalty and interest were directed to be recovered from the petitioner. The aforesaid order dated 09.04.2016 was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Varanasi Region, Varanasi by filing Stamp Revision No. C20171400634 of 2017 under Section 56(1) of the Act, 1899. The aforesaid revision was dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Varanasi Region, Varanasi. The orders dated 13.04.2017 and 09.04.2016 have been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. The report of the Sub-Registrar and the contents of the notice issued to the petitioner were not challenged by the petitioner before the court of Assistant Commissioner Stamp, District Jaunpur and through her application dated 07.04.2016, the petitioner had agreed to pay the reported deficiency in the stamp duty and it was stated by her that she did not want to contest the case. The order dated 09.04.2016 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner relying on the report of the Sub-Registrar and the admission of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner can not now be permitted to challenge, in the writ petition, the correctness of the contents of the report dated 28.03.2016 submitted by the Sub-Registrar and consequently the legality of the orders dated 09.04.2016 and 13.04.2017 passed on the basis of the aforesaid report. For the said reason, the challenge to orders dated 09.04.2016 and 13.04.2017 is rejected. 4. For the said reason, the challenge to orders dated 09.04.2016 and 13.04.2017 is rejected. 4. However, counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that admittedly the petitioner had purchased only 1/5 share in plot no. 668 (total area 0.2140 hectare) and therefore, the area in the plot no. 668 purchased by the petitioner through sale deed dated 30.04.2014 was merely 0.428 hectare. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that rate at which stamp duty had been imposed on plot no. 668 was Rs. 66,150/- per are and, therefore, total liability on the petitioner regarding plot no. 668 was merely Rs. 2,83,122/- but the same has been erroneously calculated as Rs. 28,31,220/- by treating the area in plot no. 668 purchased by the petitioner as 42.8 hectare. 5. I have perused the sale deed dated 30.04.2014 and the report dated 28.03.2016 of the Sub-Registrar as well as order dated 09.04.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 6. Perusal of the report dated 28.03.2016 and order dated 09.04.2016 shows some discrepancy in the calculation of requisite stamp duty regarding plot no. 668 and the requisite stamp duty to be paid on sale deed dated 30.04.2014 7. The position regarding the total area purchased by the petitioner in plot no. 668 and the discrepancy in the report dated 28.03.2016 and order dated 09.04.2016 regarding the requisite stamp duty to be paid in relation to the area purchased by the petitioner in plot no. 668 and consequently the total stamp duty to be paid by the petitioner on sale deed dated 30.04.2014 is not disputed by the Standing Counsel. The aforesaid is only an arithmetical and clerical error and can be corrected by the Assistant Commissioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner may file an application before the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps), District- Jaunpur within one month from today bringing to his notice the alleged errors in calculating the requisite stamp duty which the petitioner was liable to pay for the area purchased by her in plot no. 668 and consequently the total stamp duty which she was liable to pay on the sale deed dated 30.04.2014. If the petitioner files such an application, the same shall be decided by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps), Jaunpur within a period of three months from the date of filing the application. 668 and consequently the total stamp duty which she was liable to pay on the sale deed dated 30.04.2014. If the petitioner files such an application, the same shall be decided by the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps), Jaunpur within a period of three months from the date of filing the application. In case the Assistant Commissioner finds that there were calculation error while fixing the requisite stamp duty regarding plot no. 668 and the total stamp duty to be paid on sale deed dated 30.04.2014 and as a result, the petitioner had paid excess stamp duty, the excess amount paid by the petitioner shall be returned to him with an interest of 8% per annum. 9. It is clarified that the Assistant Commissioner shall only consider the error, if any, in calculating the requisite stamp duty for plot no. 668 and the consequential total stamp duty to be paid on sale deed dated 30.04.2014. 10. It is further clarified that the Court has not adjudicated on the merits of the claim of the petitioner regarding the arithmetical errors in calculating the stamp duty as aforesaid. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.