Spykar Life Style Limited Stamp vs State Of U.P. Through Collector ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 20828 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1003366 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Spykar Life Style Limited Stamp
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Collector Distt. Lucknow And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pritish Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

Heard Sri Shantanu Gupta holding brief of Sri Pritish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Sanjay Sareen, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

At the very out set, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in pursuance to the impugned order dated 14.12.2011, the petitioner has already deposited the deficit stamp duty and is only confining the instant petition to the penalty which has been imposed by the competent authority as has been reduced by the appellate authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the competent authority vide impugned order dated 14.12.2011, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, upon finding the petitioner to have paid less stamp duty had directed the petitioner to deposit the stamp duty at a certain rate and had also imposed penalty of Rs.3,00,000/-. Upon an appeal being filed, the amount of penalty has been reduced from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.1,12,100/- by the appellate authority vide impugned order dated 24.05.2012, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the order impugned passed by the competent authority dated 14.12.2011 there is no finding of any deliberate attempt having been made by the petitioner of he having concealed the relevant facts in execution of the sale deed and having had an intention to evade the payment of stamp duty.

Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Gyan Prakash vs. State of U.P. and others in Misc. Single No.17858 of 2016 decided on 07.02.2019, it is contended that this Court has held after considering the earlier judgments on this point that the sine qua non for imposition of the penalty is a finding to be recorded by the Collector based on the relevant material that the purchaser or the person liable to pay stamp duty had concealed the relevant facts in execution of the sale deed and had the intention to evade payment of the stamp duty.

The aforesaid proposition of law is not disputed by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

Accordingly, considering the law laid down by this Court in the case of Gyan Prakash (supra) and admittedly there being no finding in the order impugned of there being any attempt on the part of the petitioner to have concealed the relevant facts in execution of the sale deed or having had an intention to evade the payment of stamp duty, the petition is partly allowed. The orders impugned dated 14.12.2011 and 24.05.2012, copies of which are Annexures 1 and 2 to the petition, so far as they have imposed penalty, are set aside.

Consequences to follow.

Order Date :- 13.12.2022

A. Katiyar