Allowed

Smt. Ratnesh Kumari v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2022WRIC/15498/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that orders assessing stamp duty deficiency and imposing penalty were unsustainable without credible material or an exemplar deed to prove under-valuation. The self-assessment by parties was held binding, and the impugned orders were quashed with a direction for refund.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 23.12.2009 and 10.9.2009 are quashed. Amounts deposited may be refunded with statutory interest.

Smt. Ratnesh Kumari Vs State of U.P. and Others — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15498 of 2010

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Ratnesh Kumari Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Srijan Pandey Advocate holding brief of Sri Swetashwa Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 23.12.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Stamp, Meerut in Revision/Appeal No. A-15/9-10 filed under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the order dated 10.9.2009 passed by the Additional Collector Ghaziabad in Case No. 44/8-09 under Section 47-A of the Act.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, present writ petition merits to be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is quite right in his submission that the impugned ordes are based on presumptions and conjectures. There is neither any cogent material in the shape of exemplar deed nor there is any other credible material on record to doubt the correct valuation of the subject deed dated 30.5.2008. The parties had described the sale consideration of the house property admeasuring 666.88 Sq. Meters with minor constructions of two rooms, kitchen, toilet and a servant room (admeasuring 74.12 Sq. Meters) and valued it at Rs. 1,14,82,000/- and paid stamp duty Rs. 11,28,200/-.

¶8

While the initiation of the reference may not be doubted, in absence of any material to either record a finding that the said

¶9

property was under valued and without any material to establish its higher value on the strength of exemplar deed etc. the orders assessing deficiency and imposing penalty cannot be sustained.

¶10

Prima facie, the self assessment made by the parties, in such matter, has to be accepted as true and correct. If the valuation is to be disturbed to the prejudice of such parties, the burden rests on the revenue authorities to establish those facts. Merely because there exists power to make enhancement does not imply or create power to pass an order in the nature of best judgment assessment on own whims and fancies and assumption of facts and circumstances. Doing that causes distress to the parties involved and also wastage of precious government time besides creating frivolous litigation for the Courts to deal with.

¶11

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The order dated 23.12.2009 and 10.9.2009 are quashed.

¶12

Any amount deposited pursuant to the order of this Court may be refunded to the petitioners together with statutory interest.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.7.2022 Faraz

¶14

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.07.08 18:42:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Ratnesh Kumari v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ratnesh Kumari v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Basudeo Steel Furnitures Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow

Mohit Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Prashant Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

S/S Vijay Dry Fruit Company Gola Deena Nath Varanasi Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow

Akhilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others