Allahabad High Court
Dr. R.K. Jaggi vs Addl. Commissioner & Others on 24 August, 2017
Bench: B. Amit Sthalekar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18998 of 2004
Petitioner :- Dr. R.K. Jaggi
Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Chandra,Vishal Khandelwal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Heard Sri Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking quashing of the orders dated 29.03.2003 and 23.02.2004 passed in proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Act, 1899) for deficiency of Stamp Duty.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased house property no. 18/163, A/7, Vihav Nagar, Taj Ganj, Tehsil and District Agra. The plot area was 206 sq.m. in which the covered area was 98.90 sq.m. This property was purchased by the petitioner through a sale deed dated 10.08.1999. On a valuation of the property at Rs. 9,37,447/-, the petitioner paid stamp duty of Rs. 93,900/-.
On an allegation that there was deficiency of stamp duty, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and vide order dated 29.03.2003, Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Agra Region, Agra/Stamp Authority determined the deficiency of stamp duty at Rs. 26,040/- and penalty of Rs. 100/-, total Rs. 26,140/- with interest.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision which was also rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Agra Division, Agra vide order dated 23.02.2004.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sale deed was executed on 10.08.1999. On a valuation of Rs. 9,37,447/-, the petitioner paid stamp duty of Rs. 93,900/- and, therefore, there was no deficiency of stamp duty. He further submits that spot inspection was conducted by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) on 10.01.2003, i.e., almost four years after the execution of sale deed and in his report, he has stated that the covered area is more than what has been shown in sale deed and, on this basis, deficiency of stamp duty has been computed.
The submission is that the spot inspection ought to have been conducted within a reasonable period of time and if it is conducted after almost four years of execution of the sale deed, such spot inspection report cannot be made the foundation of proceedings for deficiency of stamp duty and for initiating proceedings for recovery of stamp duty against the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that in the spot inspection report, land in question was found to be in excess of what has been shown in the sale deed which means that the petitioner had deliberately concealed the total area/covered area and had paid less stamp duty.
In my opinion, this submission of learned Standing Counsel has absolutely has no force.
Spot inspection must be done within a reasonable period of time from the date of execution/registration of instrument in question. A person who purchases property has a right to develop his property and make constructions thereon subsequent to such purchase and it is not expected of him to wait for a considerable length of time before developing his property on the mere presumption that at some point of time, respondents may through a delayed action conduct a spot inspection accusing him of deficiency of stamp duty.
A purchaser of property has a right to feel secure in his possession and he has also a right to make additions/alterations to such property feeling secure in the notion that the stamp duty paid by him is valid and he would not be unnecessarily harassment with the litigation as burdened with the liability of payment of alleged deficiency of stamp duty.
In the present case, admittedly, the spot inspection was conducted on 10.01.2003 and it is clear from the spot inspection report filed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition that it is more than three years from the date of execution of the sale deed. Such a spot inspection cannot be the foundation of subsequent proceedings under Section 47A of the Act, 1899 for computing deficiency of stamp duty. It is not mentioned that the construction made is an old construction on the property, prior to sale deed.
For reasons aforesaid, impugned orders dated 29.03.2003 and 23.02.2004 are absolutely illegal, arbitrary and are, accordingly, quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
In case any amount has been deposited by the petitioner towards deficiency of stamp duty under the interim orders of this court, the same shall be refunded to him by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 24.8.2017
Shubham
