Allowed

Ghulam Jilani and 6 Ors. v. State of U.P.through Collector Sultanpur.

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024WRIC/1001639/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a writ petition challenging orders imposing deficiency in stamp duty. The court held that relying solely on a spot inspection report without an independent mind for market value is illegal, citing precedent.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders under Section 47-A and Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act passed against the petitioners were set aside.

Ghulam Jilani and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P.through Collector… — Income Tax | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82931

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1001639 of 2003

¶4

Petitioner :- Ghulam Jilani And 6 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Collector Sultanpur. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Saeed Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Mohammad Saeed, learned counsel for petitioners and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 28.02.2001 passed under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act as well as the order dated 07.05.2003 passed in revision under Section 56 of the Act whereby deficiency of stamp duty has been indicated in the sale-deed dated 08.09.1999.

¶8

It has been submitted that a complaint was filed indicating deficient stamp duty having been paid by petitioner and on that basis the Lekhpal report was submitted on 15.12.1999 whereafter the case under Section 47-A of the Act was registered.

¶9

Learned counsel has submitted that spot inspection was carried out on 09.02.2001 which forms the basis of the order passed under Section 47-A of the Act.

¶10

Learned counsel has also submitted that impugned order has been passed only on the basis of future potential use of the property as well as the nature of area adjacent to the plot in question. It is further submitted that even after alleged spot inspection having taken place on 09.02.2001, no report whatsoever has been submitted by the concerned authority and the conclusion finds mentioned only to the impugned order. It is therefore submitted that no time whatsoever was granted to petitioners to file objections to the spot inspection report, which even otherwise is ex parte in nature. Learned counsel has also submitted that spot inspection report cannot form the basis of the order passed under Section 47-A and the authority

¶11

in fact is required to apply independent mind with regard to market value of the property in question in terms of established norm and thereafter only it can indicate deficiency of stamp duty. It is submitted that since the aforesaid procedure has not been followed, the order impugned therefore stands vitiated.

¶12

Learned counsel further submits that the order passed under Section 56 has also not adverted to the aforesaid facts and submissions raised before appellate authority.

¶13

Learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that the impugned orders clearly indicate deficiency of stamp duty on the basis of construction which were raised on the plot in question. Learned counsel has also adverted to the supplementary counter afÏdavit to submit that even in the order-sheet, prior notice of spot inspection to be held on 09.02.2001 was given to the petitioner which has duly been counter-signed by the counsel for petitioners and therefore the provisions of Rule 7 (3)(c) of the Rules framed under the provisions of Act have also been complied with since prior notice thereof was already available with the petitioners.

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the impugned order passed under Section 47-A of the Act relies solely on the spot inspection conducted on 09.02.2001. A perusal of the order also indicates the fact that the plots in question have been declared to be residential and commercial on the basis of it being adjacent to Abadi area and a room having been made thereupon as well as the fact that the plots have been purchased jointly by various persons.

¶15

It has been admitted in the counter afÏdavit as also evident from the order-sheet that although allegedly spot inspection took place on 09.02.2001 but no spot inspection report was prepared by the authority concerned being the District Magistrate and the findings of spot inspection have found place right-away in the impugned order itself

¶16

passed under Section 47 A of the Act.

¶17

The aspect as to whether spot inspection report can form the sole basis of an order passed under Section 47-A of the Act has already been dealt with by this Court in the case of Ganga Ram versus State of U.P. & Ors reported in 2020 (38) LCD 1991 in which it has clearly held that spot inspection report by itself cannot form the sole basis of an order passed under Section 47- A of the Act.

¶18

It is also discernible from the order that deficiency in stamp duty has been imposed on the basis of the plot being adjacent to a developed area such as an Abadi area.

¶19

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Prakashwati versus Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue; (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 657 has already held that the fact of plot purchased being continuous to a developed area is immaterial for the purposes of consideration of a market value and therefore stamp duty.

¶20

Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present case, it is evident that deficiency in stamp duty has been held on account of the plot in question being contiguous to a developed area without relying on any exemplars or even taking into account present situation of the plot in question.

¶21

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed . The parties to bear their own costs.

¶22

Order Date : - 11.12.2024 Subodh/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ghulam Jilani and 6 Ors. v. State of U.P.through Collector Sultanpur.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghulam Jilani and 6 Ors. v. State of U.P.through Collector Sultanpur.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Pathak S/O Late Durga Shanker Pathak Obj. Filed Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary Tax and Registration

Nisar Ahmad and Another Objection Filed Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secy.Tax and Others

Mamta Girls Degree College Thru. Its Manager Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Higher Edu. Govt. Lko and 3 Others

Shiv Autar Sharma and 10 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Rambabu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Jaikeerat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.