Disposed

Prashant Kumar Agrahari and Another v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2023WRIC/40282/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition against an order under Section 47-A of the Stamps Act. Rejecting the petitioner's claim that the construction was for personal use, the court ordered exemption from the remaining penalty only if outstanding duty is partially paid within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Exemption from pay remaining stamp duty amount granted only if 3/4th of outstanding is deposited within four weeks.

Prashant Kumar Agrahari and Another Vs State of U P and… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40282 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Agrahari And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijai Kumar Mishra,Rajesh Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Vijai Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are aggrieved that order passed under Section 47-A of Stamps Act, as applicable in the State of U.P. was passed erroneously on the basis of spot inspection conducted after seven months of execution of the instrument in question as well as the explanation mentioned in reply was not considered that the construction was made for the purpose of personal use and not for any business purpose.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that construction was made subsequent to the execution of instrument in question and it was for the purpose of keeping animals and tractor. The finding of authority is concerned that it was for purpose of commercial use, is not based on any document or material. He referred the objection raised by petitioners as well as the findings of authority and the revisional authority.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that petitioners have improved his case as in objection to the notice, it was only stated that construction was recently made and it was not for business purpose.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record, it is not in dispute that petitioners have executed the instrument in

¶11

question without any declaration of any construction. An inspection was conducted by Deputy Registrar, Banda and his report dated 18.12.2014, it was pointed out that two shops were constructed which was not disclosed in the instrument in question.

¶12

A show cause notice was issued and a reply was also submitted wherein the petitioners have mentioned that construction of shops were subsequent to sale deed and it was not for purpose of commercial use. However, case now put by petitioners are that it was for purpose of keeping animals and tractor. The authority concern while considering the report as well as reply has given a finding that construction was in shape of shops, having shutter on it. No substantial explanation was submitted by petitioners in support of his vague contention.

¶13

In revision also the contention raised by petitioners were rejected, being vague and without substantiated by any evidence oral or documentary. Since, the impugned order is based on basis of material available and report which has not been contradicted by any document or any substantial material, no error was committed in passing impugned order.

¶14

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners submits petitioners have deposited Rs. 70,000/-, out of deficiency in Stamp Duty as determined by order dated 28.08.2015 i.e. Rs.81,940/- and penalty of Rs. 15,000/-, total being Rs. 96,940/- and remaining outstanding is approximately Rs. 30,000.

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that they are poor persons.

¶16

Considering the above submissions while rejecting the prayers made in writ petition and without interfering the impugned order, this writ petition is disposed of , in case petitioners deposit 3/4th of outstanding amount as on date within a period

¶17

of four weeks from today, petitioners will be exempted to pay remaining amount as calculated by authority.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.1.2023 P. Pandey

¶19

Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prashant Kumar Agrahari and Another v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Kumar Agrahari and Another v. State of U P and 3 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

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ankur Malviya Vs the State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Simirta Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Renu Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

M/S Prerna Construction Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dinesh Shukla Vs State of U P and 3 Others