Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1945 (ALL)

Neetu Gupta v. State of U. P.

2018-09-07

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. A sale deed dated 23.11.2010 was executed in favour of the petitioner for a consideration amount of Rs. 13,81,000/- and stamp duty was paid on the consideration amount shown in the sale deed. Subsequently, Case No. 13 of 2010-11 was registered against the petitioner under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and in the said case, respondent no. 2 i.e. the District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai held that there was a deficiency of Rs.5,35,300/- in payment of stamp duty and accordingly directed that the aforesaid amount along with a penalty of Rs.5,35,300/- and an interest calculated at the rate of 1.5% per month be recovered from the petitioner. Against the order dated 9.1.2014 passed by respondent no. 2, the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi which was numbered as Revision No. 8 of 2013-14. While the aforesaid revision was pending, the State Government issued a notification dated 4.11.2015 wherein it was provided that in case the assesses were ready to pay the deficiency amount along with interest then they may be exempted from payment of penalty subject to payment of a token penalty of Rs.10/-. The petitioner expressed his readiness before the revisional court to pay the deficiency in stamp duty along with the interest and therefore the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi vide his order dated 25.2.2015 remanded back the matter to the Collector i.e. respondent no. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner under the Notification dated 4.11.2015. There is some dispute between the petitioner and the Standing Counsel regarding service of notice to the petitioner in the subsequent proceedings before the Collector. It has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Standing Counsel that notices were issued to the petitioner but he failed to appear in the same. However, the said fact has been controverted by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit. However, in view of the order that is proposed to be passed, the aforesaid controversy is not relevant for a decision of the writ petition. Subsequently, in pursuance to the direction dated 25.2.2015 issued by the Commissioner i.e. the revisional court, the Collector vide his order dated 6.6.2016 passed in Case No. 13/2010-11 again directed the petitioner to pay the deficiency amount of Rs.5,35,310/- along with an interest calculated at the rate of 1.5% per month. Subsequently, in pursuance to the direction dated 25.2.2015 issued by the Commissioner i.e. the revisional court, the Collector vide his order dated 6.6.2016 passed in Case No. 13/2010-11 again directed the petitioner to pay the deficiency amount of Rs.5,35,310/- along with an interest calculated at the rate of 1.5% per month. However, in his aforesaid order, the Collector imposed a penalty of only Rs.10/- on the petitioner. The order dated 6.6.2016 has been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that after the order dated 9.1.2014 passed by the Collector and during the pendency of the revision before the Commissioner, the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.4,20,000/- on 25.6.2014. It has been stated that while passing the order dated 6.6.2016, the said amount of Rs.4,20,000/- has not been taken into consideration by the Collector and therefore, the order dated 6.6.2016 passed by the Collector asking the petitioner to deposit a deficiency of Rs.5,35,310/- along with an interest calculated at the rate of Rs.1.5% per month on the total amount has been passed without considering the amount already deposited by the petitioner and without verifying the facts and is, therefore, liable to be set-aside. 4. It would serve no purpose to keep the writ petition pending in as much as the contention of the petitioner requires an investigation into facts. The District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai i.e. respondent no. 2 is the appropriate authority to verify the facts stated by the petitioner. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the receipt dated 25.6.2014 showing that he had deposited an amount of Rs.4,20,000/-. 5. The petitioner may file an application before the District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai i.e. respondent no. 2 bringing to his notice the deposit of Rs.4,20,000/- on 25.6.2014 and the District Magistrate, after verifying the same from the appropriate department of the Government, shall pass fresh orders computing the liability of the petitioner till the date of the fresh order to be passed by the District Magistrate after excluding the amount of Rs.4,20,000/- stated by the petitioner to have been deposited on 25.6.2014. The District Magistrate shall pass fresh orders within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The District Magistrate shall pass fresh orders within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Till fresh orders are passed by the District Magistrate, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 6.6.2016. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.