Sanjeev Kumar & another v. State of U.P.) computerized Case No. C
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35679 Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12634 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 31st July, 2024 passed by this Court in bunch of writ petitions leading Writ-C No. 27512 of 2021 (Rajeshwar Dayal Tyagi & Another Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others), wherein identical issue was involved. By means of the order dated 31st July, 2024, this Court while allowing the said bunch of writ petitions has observed that if the Government Order dated 8th July, 2011 is not available to the petitioners, then the levy of penalty and interest cannot be justified and modified the orders impugned in the said bunch of writ petitions to the extent of deleting the levy of penalty and interest. On the above premise, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 by contending that the application for recall of the order dated 30th October, 2019 was moved by the petitioners after dismissal of the appeal filed against the order dated 31st October, 2019. He further submits that the petitioners in their wisdom have not raised the said plea that while determining the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 14,03,920/- along with registration fees Rs. 20,0000/-, the amount of stamp duty of Rs. 4,74000/- as well as registration fees of Rs. 20,000/-paid by the father of the petitioners at the time execution of sale-deed have not been adjusted/deducted, before the appellate authority. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 8. The record shows that the State Government has issued Government Order dated 8th July, 2011 which relates to redemption of stamp duty to the farmers whose land was acquired for development purposes but in the year 2018 a decision was taken that benefit of said circular will not be accorded to the purchasers like the petitioners as the land was not acquired by the State Government. 9. It would be worth while to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the order of this Court dated 31st July, 2024, which has heavily been referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, whereby similar issue has been decided. 10. For ready reference, paragraph nos. 9 to 11 read as follows: "9. It is an admitted fact that the sale deed was executed in the year 2015 and at that time, a Government Order dated 08.07.2011 was in operation where some contradiction was there, which was later on clarified, in the year 2018 holding that the benefit of the said circular cannot be given. Once the State itself clarified the position as to whether the benefit will be accorded to the persons such as petitioners, then it cannot be said that the petitioners have not disclosed the true and correct value or made any fault for deficiency of stamp, therefore, it is incorrect to hold that intentionally, there was a short payment of stamp duty. 10. Further, no reason has been recorded by either of the authorities for levying penalty and interest when the State Government itself in the year 2018 clarified that the benefit of G.O. dated 08.07.2011 is not available to the petitioners, then the levy of penalty and interest cannot be justified.
Arguments
Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheetla Sahai Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- CSC Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.08.2021/09.08.2021 passed by respondent no.2 i.e. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in Revision No. 01130/2020 (Sanjeev Kumar & another Vs. State of U.P.) computerized Case No. C202011000001130 under Section 56 (1)- Indian Stamp Act,1899 as well as order dated 30.10.2019 passed by respondent no.3 i.e. Additional District Magistrate (F & A), Meerut Division, Tehsil & District, Meerut under Section 47(A) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in computerized Case No. D2017115201527 (State Vs. Om Prakash & others) alongwith order dated 11.05.2022 passed by respondent no.2 in restoration application filed by the petitioner in Case No. D2017115201527 (State Vs. Om Prakash & others). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners' father purchased half share of agricultural land measuring area 1.0285 hectare in Khasara No. 823, whereas one Rajkumar, Shiv Kumar, Herkumar and Kalawati purchased remaining half share of the said land, by executing a sale-deed dated 20th June, 2015. Father of the petitioners paid stamp duty of Rs. 4,74000/- relying on Government Order dated 8th July, 2011 bearing no. Ka Ne- 5-242611-2011-500 (33)/2011. Thereafter a report was submitted before the Assistant Inspector General of Registration on 2nd March, 2017 by the Sub-Registrar holding therein that the father of the petitioners is not entitled for any redemption/exemption in view of the Government Order dated 8th July, 2011. Pursuant to the said report of the Sub-Registrar, proceedings were initiated after lodging Case No. 1527 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Omprakash & Others) under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1899") and thereafter an order dated 30th October, 2019 was passed by respondent no.3 holding that there was deficiency of Rs. 14,03,920/- in the stamp duty paid by the father of the petitioners along with registration fees Rs. 20,0000/- and he also imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month from the date of execution of sale-deed dated 20th June, 2015. Against the order dated 30th October, 2019, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 56 of the Act of 1899 before respondent no.2 which has been dismissed vide order dated 18th August, 2021/9th August, 2021 while confirming the order dated 30th October, 2019. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that during the pendency of appeal, recovery proceedings were initiated for recovery of the amount as required in the order dated 30th October, 2019. After perusal of the recovery certificate/order, it was noticed by the petitioners that the stamp duty of Rs. 4,74000/- as well as registration fees of Rs. 20,000/-paid by the father of the petitioners at the time execution of sale-deed has not been adjusted/deducted while calculating the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 14,03,920/-, as such, an application for recall of the order dated 30th October, 2019 was moved by the petitioners but the same was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 11th May, 2022. He submits that deficiency of stamp duty should have been determined after deducting the amount of 4,74000/- paid by the father of the petitioners towards stamp duty at the time of registration of sale-deed as well as registration fees of Rs. 20,000/- but by the impugned order dated 11th May, 2022, the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
Decision
11. In view of the above, the impugned orders are modified to the extent deleting the levy of penalty and interest. 12. Accordingly, the writ petitions are partly allowed." 11. In view of the above, so far as the levy of penalty and interest imposed upon the petitioners while passing the impugned orders cannot be legally sustained and are hereby quashed. 12. So far as the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 14,03,920/- as well the registration fees Rs. 20,0000/- as determined by the concerned authority while passing the order dated 30th October, 2019 is concerned, the perusal of the record shows that in the report prepared by the Sub-Registrar on 22nd March, 2017, it was noticed that demand of stamp duty was required to be paid at Rs. 14,03, 920/- on purchased agricultural land at the rate of 7%. From the said report it is clear that the total value of levy of stamp duty was only Rs. 14,03,920/-while executing the sale deed and the father of the petitioner had paid Rs. 4,74,000/- towards stamp duty at the time of registration of the sale-deed. This amount ought to have been taken into consideration while determining the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs. 14,03,920/-. 13. In view of above, the order impugned dated 11th May, 2022 passed by respondent no.3 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for recall of the order dated 30th October, 2019 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law to the extent of reconsidering the determining of deficiency of stamp duty after adjusting the amount of stamp duty of Rs. 4, 74,000/- which was paid by the father of the petitioners at the time of registration of sale deed. Accordingly, the order dated 11th May, 2022 is aside to that extent only. 14. Respondent no.3 shall revisit the order dated 11th May, 2022 and pass a fresh order in light of the observations made above within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to submit a certified copy of this order before respondent no.3 within a week from today. 16. The present writ petition stands partly allowed. (Piyush Agrawal, J.) Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Sushil/- Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad