Allahabad High Court
Pushpawati vs Add. Comm. Stamp Devi Patan Mandal Gonda ... on 2 May, 2024
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34221
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1000517 of 2010
Petitioner :- Pushpawati
Respondent :- Add. Comm. Stamp Devi Patan Mandal Gonda And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Nitin Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
2. Petitioner has challenged order dated 22.06.2009 passed by Prescribed Authority under section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1899) whereby instrument of transfer has been found to be deficient in stamp duty. Also under challenge is appellate order dated 08.09.2009 rejecting petitioner's appeal as well as order dated 24.12.2009 rejecting recall application.
3. It has been submitted that petitioner purchased the property in question by means of sale-deed dated 18.10.2008 and proceedings under Section 47-A/33 of the Act was initiated against petitioner in terms of spot inspection report dated 14.01.2009 whereafter the impugned orders have been passed against petitioner.
4. It has been submitted that during the course of proceedings, a fresh spot inspection was directed and a report was submitted on 20.05.2009 which forms the basis of order passed by the Prescribed Authority. It is however submitted that the Prescribed Authority has erred by passing the order under Section 47-A/33 of the Act basing it solely on the spot inspection report, which even otherwise was ex parte and was therefore not required to be considered in lieu of Rule 7(3)(C) of the U.P Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997.
5. It is submitted that such a ground was although taken in appeal, has not been considered at all by the appellate authority who has also rejected petitioner's appeal.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:
(i) Ram Khelawan @ Bachchha v. Sate of U.P. and others reported in 2005 (98) RD 511, and
(ii) Ganga Ram versus State of U.P. & Ors reported in 2020 (38) LCD 1991.
7. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that a perusal of impugned orders will make it evident that there was clear deficiency in stamp duty since it was not in accordance with circle rate prescribed and therefore there is no error in the impugned orders.
8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is quite evident that the impugned order dated 22.06.2009 passed by the Prescribed Authority is based entirely on the spot inspection report dated 20.05.2009. The aforesaid report has been brought on record as Annexure No.6 to the petition which does not indicate any prior notice having been served upon the petitioner or her presence at the time of inspection.
9. Rule 7(3)(C) of the U.P Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997 clearly stipulate that the spot inspection is required to be conducted in the presence of the assessees. Aforesaid Rule has already been held to be mandatory by Coordinate Bench decision in the case of Ganga Ram versus State of U.P. & Ors reported in 2020 (38) LCD 1991. The aforesaid aspect has also been considered in the case of Ram Khelawan @ Bachchha v. Sate of U.P. and others reported in 2005 (98) RD 511. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:-
"25. It has been found in several cases like the present one that the entire basis of determination of market value for the purpose of stamp duty is ex-parte report of Tehsildar or other officer. Ex-parte inspection report may be relevant for initiating the proceedings under Section 47-A of Stamp Act. However, for deciding the case no reliance can be placed upon the said report. After initiation of the case inspection is to be made by the Collector or authority hearing the case after due notice to the parties to the instrument as provided under Rule-7(3) (c) of the Rules of 1997. Moreover in the inspection report distance of the property from other residential or commercial properties and road must be shown and wherever possible sketch map must also be annexed alongwith the report so that correct valuation may be ascertained with reasonable certainty.'
10. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite evident that the spot inspection report cannot be the sole basis of adjudicating deficiency in stamp duty without adverting to exemplars and other relevant documents such as revenue records. Even otherwise the order passed under Section 47-A cannot be based solely on the spot inspection report which also is required to be in terms of Rule 7(3)(C) of the U.P Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997.
11. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments, it is quite evident that the order passed by Prescribed Authority is based entirely on the ex parte spot inspection report dated 20.05.2009 which clearly was inadmissible as evident in view of mandatory provisions of Rule 7(3)(C) of the U.P Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules 1997. The appellate authority also has ignored the aforesaid factor and has passed the order merely following the order passed by Prescribed Authority.
12. In view of discussions made hereinabove, it is evident that the order dated 22.06.2009 passed by the Prescribed Authority under sections 33/ 47-A of the Act of 1899 as well as the appellate order dated 08.09.2009 being against law propounded and statutory provisions are hereby set aside. The impugned order dated 24.12.2009 rejecting petitioner's recall application being consequential in nature is also set aside.
13. Consequences to follow.
14. It is provided that in case any amount has been deposited by petitioner in pursuance of impugned orders, she shall be entitled for a refund forthwith.
15. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 2.5.2024
Subodh/-
