Allahabad High Court
M/S Ram Devi Memorial Trust vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 April, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3306 of 2021
Petitioner :- M/S Ram Devi Memorial Trust
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Krishna,Bharat Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
AND
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18031 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ram Devi Memorial Education Trust
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bharat Pratap Singh,Shivam Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Both the said writ petitions involves similar questions and facts and arise out of same transaction, the same are being decided by this common order.
2. For the sake of brevity, the facts of Writ-C No.3306 of 2021 are being recorded.
3. The present petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner had got executed a lease deed by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (in short ''UPSIDC') on 24.02.2018 in respect of a Plot No.C171, area 5152.60 sq. meter situate at Mauza Talanagari Industrial Area, Koil, Aligarh.
4. It is argued that on the basis of the registry, the stamp duty was duly paid. Along with the stamp duty, a Bank guarantee was also furnished in view of the requirement of the Industrial Investment Policy, 2012. In respect of the said lease deed, some confidential report was furnished by the Sub-Registrar and a case was registered under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The petitioner filed his objection against the notice issued and also took a ground that inspection carried out is contrary to the Rule 7 (3)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997. After the filing of the objection, an order came to be passed on 24.12.2019 holding the deficiency of stamp duty at Rs.2,61,740/- which was directed to be recovered along with penalty of Rs.1,30,870/- and interest merely on the ground that the plot was situated at a two side road and was in front of a park and in terms of the valuation list issued by the District Magistrate, 20% extra stamp duty was payable. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, which was partly allowed and the penalty imposed was reduced to Rs.13,087/- vide order dated 24.09.2020. It is stated that the entire amount has been deposited by the petitioner in terms of the appellate order.
5. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner Sri Vipul Singh is that the petitioner had purchased the property from the UPSIDC, which is a State owned corporation and thus, there was no question of evasion of any stamp duty. He further argues that reasoning for assessing the stamp duty that the plot is situated at a two side road and in front of a park is misconceived, as the circle rate are issued in respect of the agricultural, residential and non-residential properties and there is no mention of industrial properties in the circle rate issued by the District Magistrate. He further argues that the valuation of the boundary wall based upon the count on eye estimation of bricks is wholly arbitrary and the report of the UPSIDC itself demonstrates the approximate cost and the number of bricks and thus, the fixation on the basis of eye estimation in respect of the boundary wall and entrance gate is wholly unjustified.
6. The Counsel for the petitioner further argues that valuation of the entrance gate is without any basis whatsoever. He lastly argues that in respect of the leases executed for the period of more than 30 years, there is an exemption notification issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, wherein exemption is granted on the payment of stamp duty in respect of the leases exceeding a term of 30 years but not exceeding 100 years, on the stamp duty over and above the amount of consideration equal to 10 times of the amount or value of the average annual rent reserved. The notification relied upon dated 06.07.2004 is numbered as Notification No.K.N.5-3730/XI-2004-500(85)-2003.
7. Learned Standing Counsel has justified the order by arguing that there was a park situate after a road in between the property of the petitioner and thus, the enhancement of the value based upon the said fact was justified in view of the circle rate issued by the District Magistrate.
8. Considering the submission made at the bar, the facts as is discerned is that the lease deed was executed by a Development Corporation and in terms of the notification of 2004, the duty above 10 times of the annual lease rent is liable to be exempted. The valuation done by the respondents on the basis of circle rate, is not justified, inasmuch as, the circle rate does not apply to the industrial properties and in any case, there was no allegation of there being any evasion of market value. In that regard, the judgment of this Court in case of Paritosh Varshney vs State of U.P. and others; MANU/UP/1639/2012 is relevant to be considered, wherein the concept of market value, vis-a-vis, the circle rate issued by the Collector was considered. The facts in the said case are almost identical to the present case. The Court also considered the scope of exemption granted vide Government Order dated 06.07.2004. Thus, the basis, on which the stamp duty was assessed, is non-existent and even otherwise, the concept of market value would not apply on the basis of which, it has been done, more so as stamp duty above 10 times the amount of average annual returned is exempted. In respect of the valuation of the boundary wall and the entry gate, the number of bricks have been counted on the basis of eye estimation which is not permissible and is also contrary to the evidence on record in the form of the report of the UPSIDC.
9. The grounds and the reasons referred above, the orders impugned are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Aligarh and the order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Stamp, Aligarh Division, Aligarh are quashed.
11. The amount deposited by the petitioner vide Challans dated 08.05.2020 and 26.11.2020 shall be returned on moving an appropriation application before the respondent no.3 within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the application along with certified copy of this order.
12. In view of above, the Writ-C No.3306 of 2021 is allowed. Consequences which are subject matter of Writ-C No.18031 of 2021 will follow.
Order Date :- 13.04.2023
akverma (Pankaj Bhatia, J)
