Allowed

Narain Resorts Private Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Mar 2014CWP/12989/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders demanding deficiency in stamp duty on a sale deed. Court held that a subsequent notification treating auction price as Collector's rate under Rule 3-B made the reference uncalled for. Petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 27.2.2008 and 21.4.2009 set aside. Amount deposited by petitioner to be returned forthwith by respondents.

Narain Resorts Private Ltd. Vs State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 12989 of 2009

¶2

[ 1 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No. 12989 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 27,2014

¶5

Narain Resorts Private Limited through its Managing Director Shri Avtar Singh.......... Petitioner

¶6

¶7

State of Punjab and others ............... Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

¶9

1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

Present: Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Addl.A.G. Punjab.

¶13

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶14

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27.2.2008 (Annexure P2) passed by respondent No.3 under Section 47-A(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit `8,80,092/- as deficiency in stamp duty on the instrument of sale dated 30.10.2006 and order dated 21.4.2009 (Annexure P5) dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

¶15

Petitioner was a successful bidder in the auction

¶16

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.22 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

[ 2 ]

¶18

C.W.P. No. 12989 of 2009

¶19

conducted by the Patiala Improvement Trust with respect to a hospital site measuring 2178 sq. yard. The allotment was made in his favour on 18.8.2004 for 45,95,580/-. The saledeed was executed and registered on 30.10.2006 (Annexure P1). The petitioner made the payment of stamp duty of 4,13,640/- with the Sub-Registrar at that time. Subsequently, the Sub-Registrar on 31.10.2007 made a reference under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to the Collector and thereafter the impugned orders dated 27.2.2008 and 21.4.2009 (Annexures P2 and P5) were passed. The stamp duty was revised by taking into account the Collector's rate which was prevalent on 30.10.2006 and not the price of allotment on 18.8.2004.

¶20

During the pendency of the petition by notification dated 31.3.2010 the Punjab Stamp (Dealing of Under-valued Instruments) Rules, 1983 were amended and Section 3B has been added which is as under:-

¶21

“3-B. Notwitstanding anything contained in rule 3A, the rate fixed for allotment or public auction of an immovable property by the Governmentn or a public sector undertaking or a local body, shall be deemed to be the Collector's rate (as fixed under rule 3-A) of such property, and the stamp duty shall be charged for registration of the instruments of such property on the rate, so fixed,

¶22

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.22 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

C.W.P. No. 12989 of 2009 [ 3 ]

¶24

at the time of execution of the first conveyance deed; provided it is got registered up to the 30^th day of June, 2010, if whole of the payment of such property has been made or within a period of three months from the date of payment of last installment, as per the schedule, fixed for payment of the allotment or auction price, as the case may be.”

¶25

As per the said amendment, in case of an allotment of immovable property by way of public auction by Government or Public Sector, the allotment price will be taken to be the Collector's rate and the stamp duty shall be charged on the rate so fixed at the time of execution of the first conveyance deed provided it was registered before 30.6.2010. Thereafter, vide notification dated 7.3.2011 this date was extended upto 30.9.2011 and thereafter notification dated 31.3.2012 was issued.

¶26

The notification dated 31.3.2010 has come up for consideration before this Court in the case of The Mohali Club, Mohali v. State of Punjab and others 2010(4)R.C.R. (Civil) 69. The Court had examined decisions of this Court while considering Rule 3-A of the Punjab Stamp (Dealing of Under-valued Instruments) Rules, 1983 which was subject matter of decision of two Division Benches in K.S.Jhamb v. State of Punjab 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 341 and State of Punjab

¶27

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.22 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

C.W.P. No. 12989 of 2009 [ 4 ]

¶29

through Collector, Bathinda v. Merry Land Estates 2009 (5) RCR (Civil) 603 wherein this Court has considered Rule 3-A of the Punjab Stamp (Dealing of Under-valued Instruments) Rules, 1983 and held that in case of allotment made by PUDA the allottee had applied for conveyance in the year 1999 and the PUDA had executed the conveyance in the year 2005. It was held that the rate prevalent at the time of registration and not on the date of allotment shall be considered and the Collector's rate at that time would be applied for registration of the document. Hence, under Rule 3-A it was the Collector's rate which was made the basis for assessing the stamp duty on the date of registration of the sale-deed. Thereafter, the notification dated 31.3.2010 was examined and it was held that in a case where the violation had been made and the revenue had been collected by the State the benefit of the notification dated 31.3.2010 would be made applicable for assessing the stamp duty and extended the benefit under Rule 3-B. It was held that the demand of stamp duty by taking the Collector's rate on the date of registration was not in accordance with Rule 3-B and the petition was allowed.

¶30

It is not disputed between the parties that after this judgment was passed, the LPA as well as the SLP against this judgment have been dismissed.

¶31

Keeping in view that this judgment has attained

¶32

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.22 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶33

C.W.P. No. 12989 of 2009 [ 5 ]

¶34

finality, in the facts of the present case, since the allotment was made in the year 2004 and after making the entire sale price the sale was registered in 2006, the reference made by the Sub-Registrar under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is uncalled for after this notification dated 31.3.2010 and rule 3-B of the Stamp Act.

¶35

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.2.2008 (Annexure P2) and dated 21.4.2009 (Annexure P5) are set aside. The amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 25.8.2009 passed by this Court shall be returned by the respondents forthwith.

¶36

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

¶37

27.3.2014 rupi

¶38

Kaur Rupinder 2014.04.22 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Narain Resorts Private Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narain Resorts Private Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Purna Nand Vs P.S.E.B etc.

Sukhwinder Kaur Vs Jarnail Singh

Karamjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Khursheed etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Suman Lata Vs Indian Oil Corp. & Ors.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Union of India and Others