Dismissed

Prem Chand Gupta & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2012CWP/6513/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Five writ petitions challenged orders directing petitioners to pay stamp duty on conveyance deeds based on instructions issued in 1998 and revised instruction dated 25.1.2011. The Court examined whether the Department could retrospectively withdraw the 7.4.2010 instructions which governed the calculation of stamp duty.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 25.1.2011 set aside; earlier instructions of 7.4.2010 declared valid prospectively; matter remitted for fresh decision.

Prem Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs Sta… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.6513 of 2011 (O&M) and other connected cases

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

1. CWP No.6513 of 2011 (O&M)

¶5

Prem Chand Gupta and another

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

2. CWP No.9020 of 2011 (O&M)

¶11

Shri Devi Dass Sharma and another

¶12

....Petitioners

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

State of Haryana and others

¶15

....Respondents

¶16

3. CWP No.9145 of 2011 (O&M)

¶17

Tarsem Singh and another

¶18

....Petitioners

¶19

VERSUS

¶20

State of Haryana and others

¶21

....Respondents

¶22

4. CWP No.9025 of 2011 (O&M)

Vijender Singh

....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

¶27

....Respondents

¶28

CWP No.6513 of 2011 (O&M) and other connected cases

¶29

¶30

5. CWP No.9146 of 2011 (O&M)

Amit Makkar

....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

¶35

....Respondents

¶36

Decided on : 22-05-2011

¶37

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶38

Present:Mr. Surya Kant Gautam , Advocate for the petitioners

¶39

Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl. AG, Haryana

¶40

MAHESH GROVER, J

¶41

This order will dispose of five writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.6513, 9020, 9145, 9025 and 9146 of 2011.

¶42

The petitioners in the above writ petitions have impugned orders of different dates vide which the Sub Divisional Officer and Collector Panchkula have directed the petitioners to pay stamp duty and registration fee as per the Government instructions letter dated 12.5.1998. A further direction was issued to recover amount (Rs.2,09,580/- in CWP No. 6513 of 2011, Rs.1,01,670/- in CWP No. 9020 of 2011, Rs.1,01,670/in CWP No. 9145 of 2011, Rs.1,56,750/- in CWP No.9025 of 2011 and Rs.1,56,750/- in CWP no.9146 of 2011) as deficiency of stamp duty on the conveyance deeds sought to be executed by the petitioners on account of transfer of flat in their favour.

¶43

The petitioners applied for the membership of the society and were allotted flats which have been surrendered by the original allottees.

¶44

¶45

CWP No.6513 of 2011 (O&M) and other connected cases

¶46

The allotment was made by the Society itself i.e Indian Railway Welfare Organisation (IRWO). The petitioners then got executed the conveyance deeds and indicated their share in the plot of land and accordingly affix stamp duty on the same.

¶47

The Sub Registrar made a reference to the competent authority i.e Collector doubting the correctness of the value of the stamp duty affixed on the conveyance deeds which resulted in the passing of the impugned orders.

¶48

Making a grievance of this, the petitioners have referred to the instructions dated 7.4.2010 in which it has been contemplated that when a flat is transferred to the member of the Group Housing Society through a conveyance deed then that member has to pay stamp duty on the execution of conveyance deed on the allotment price of land with respect to his share only and this would not include the cost of construction. These instructions were subsequently clarified to say that the registration of the first transaction between the colonizer/HUDA and the original allottee is to be done on the basis of original sale price charged by the Colonizer/HUDA and for subsequent transactions the rates prescribed by the Collector should be kept in mind. These instructions were issued on 25.1.2011 and the previous instructions of 7.4.2010 were withdrawn from the date of its issue.

¶49

The grievance of the petitioners is limited and directed against clause 3 of the subsequent instructions dated 25.1.2011 which have the effect of withdrawing the earlier instructions retrospectively i.e from the date of its issue. The following clause 3 is extracted herebelow:-

¶50

“ 3. In this regard the clarification issued vide

¶51

¶52

CWP No.6513 of 2011 (O&M) and other connected cases

¶53

Memo No. 5268-STR-1-2009/3359, dated 7.4.2010 is hereby withdrawn w.e.f date of its issue.”

¶54

Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the orders impugned herein are appealable and the petitioners have not availed of this remedy and consequently the petitions are mis-conceived. However, no satisfactory explanation has been given as to why earlier instructions have been withdrawn with retrospective effect.

¶55

This being the solitary question to which the attention of this Court has been invited, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents by couching the subsequent instructions as clarificatory cannot withdraw the impact and effect of the earlier instructions dated 7.4.2010 retrospectively and nullify its impact altogether from the date of its issue. Such would be totally contrary to the settled proposition of law that retro effect cannot be imported into any policy or instructions. Consequently, the limited challenge to the instructions dated 25.1.2011 is accepted and it is declared that the same shall have an effect prospectively and any conveyance deed which has been registered or sought to be registered when the instructions dated 7.4.2010 were in force would not be effected by such a clarification issued vide the impugned instructions dated 25.1.2011. The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside and the matters are remitted back to the competent authority for decision afresh keeping in view the aforesaid observations.

¶56

All the petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶57

(Mahesh Grover) Judge

¶58

May 22, 2012 rekha

Prem Chand Gupta & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chand Gupta & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

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

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Satwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Amarjit Singh Johal Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

M/S Khalsa Agricultural Store, Malerkotla Vs Director Agriculture, Punjab, Chd & Ors.

M/S Aman Securities and Detectives Vs Punjab State Coop, Milk Producers and Anr.

Mohan Lal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.