Appellants challenged the Single Judge's order quashing stamp duty demand proceedings liable for delay. The High Court upheld the quashing, holding that the Collector lacked jurisdiction as proceedings were initiated beyond the six-year limit.
No order as to costs. Special Civil Application disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/LPA/1212/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1212 of 2018
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16993 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 of 2018
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus JAYANTILAL BABULAL TATED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DM DEVNANI, AGP for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 24/09/2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY)
1.This Letters Patent Appeal, under clause
15 of the Letters Patent, is filed by the
original respondents in Special Civil
Application No.16993 of 2016, aggrieved by the
order dated 27.2.2018 passed by the learned
Single Judge.
The respondents-original petitionershave filed aforesaid Special Civil Application
Page 1 of 5
C/LPA/1212/2018 ORDER
with the prayers, which read as under:
“A.Please allow the petition in the
interest of justice and
B.Please pass an order issuing appropriate
writ to respondents and please an order to
quash and set aside the orders at annexure K
of resp.4 dated 27/9/2012, AND annexure M
dated 9/10/2015 and N of respondent no.2 in
case of deed no.2362/10-10-1994, which is
without justification of delay as section
32/A-4 of the Bombay stamp act, 1958.
C.heavy cost of this petition be given
from respondents.”
The order impugned passed by the primary authority dated 27.9.2012 and order passed the appellate authority dated 9.10.2015, refusing to condone the delay, were the subject matter of challenge arising under section 32 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958. By the impugned order in the petition passed by the primary authority, a demand is made by the primary authority for payment of deficit stamp duty on the sale deed registered on 10.10.1994. The learned Single Judge, mainly on the ground that the proceedingsare initiated beyond a period of six years,
Page 2 of 5
C/LPA/1212/2018 ORDER
under section 32A(4) of the Act, has quashed the
order passed by the primary authority. Though
the learned Single Judge has recorded that there
was no proper explanation to condone the delay
in approaching the appellate authority and
further, in view of the judgment of the Full
Bench in the case of Jayminbhai Navinbhai Doshi
& Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in
2015 (1) GLH 167, delay cannot be condoned but,
at the same time, the learned Single Judge has
also considered merits of the matter by looking
into the validity of the order passed by the
primary authority dated 27.9.2012 and quashed
the order of the primary authority as well as
the appellate authority only on the ground that
proceedings were initiated after six years,
contrary to provisions under section 32A(4) of
the Act.
4.In this appeal, the only contention
raised by the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the appellants is that the
Page 3 of 5
C/LPA/1212/2018 ORDER
order of the primary authority is traceable to
powers under section 32A(1) of the Act but not
under section 32A(4) of the Act. A perusal of
the order dated 27.9.2012 makes it clear that it
is the order demanding deficit stamp duty and is
traceable to powers under section 32A(4) of the
Act and is not a case of reference as
contemplated under section 32A(1) of the Act.
For collecting deficit stamp duty in case of
undervaluation, powers are conferred on the
Collector under section 32A(4) of the Act to
initiate proceedings within a period of six
years from the date of registration of the
instrument. As it is not in dispute that
initiation of proceedings is beyond the period
of six years, we do not find any merit in this
appeal so as to interfere with the order passed
by the learned Single Judge. It is true that the
learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that
there is no proper explanation for the delay
but, at the same time, as the order passed by
the primary authority itself is contrary to the
Page 4 of 5
C/LPA/1212/2018 ORDER
plain reading of section 32A(4) of the Act, the
learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the
orders passed by the primary authority dated
27.9.2012 as well as the appellate authority
dated 9.10.2015.
5.For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal
is devoid of merits and accordingly it is
dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently,
Civil Application also stands disposed of.
(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ)
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
RADHAKRISHNAN K.V.
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings to demand deficit stamp duty initiated beyond six years violate the limitation period under Section 32A(4) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958.
Whether the Single Judge correctly quashed the orders for lack of jurisdiction due to delay exceeding the statutory period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jayminbhai Navinbhai Doshi & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.Referred¶35
Jayminbhai Navinbhai Doshi & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2015 (1) GLH 167
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Gujarat
Jayantilal Babulal Tated
R. Subhash Reddy
Vipul M. Pancholi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court