Allahabad High Court
Sandeep Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P.Through Collector ... on 6 May, 2024
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34790
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1002479 of 2008
Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Collector Barabanki And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- U.S.Sahai
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 15.06.1998 passed under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 thereby indicating deficiency in the Stamp Duty pertaining to instrument of transfer dated 28.09.1996. Also under challenge is the revisional order dated 24.03.2008 passed under Section 56 of the Act.
3. It has been submitted that petitioner had purchased the property in question by means of instrument of transfer dated 28.09.1996 whereafter proceedings under Section 47A were instituted in pursuance of report of Sub-Registrar dated 29.09.1996 culminating in passing of present impugned orders.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a perusal of impugned order passed under Section 47A will make it evident that it is based entirely on the spot inspection reports dated 29.09.1996 and 07.01.1998. It is submitted that, however, specific objections were raised by petitioner against the aforesaid spot inspection reports to the effect that neither any notice was given to petitioner prior to spot inspection nor was he present at that time and therefore there is clear violation of Rule 7 (3) (c) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Properties) Rules, 1997. It has been further submitted that exemplar provided by petitioner of a sale deed dated 31.12.1997 has also been discarded by the prescribed authority on a faulty reasoning. He has placed reliance on judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Ganga Ram versus State of U.P.; 2020 (38) LCD 1991, Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha versus State of U.P.; (2005) (2) AWC 1087,State of U.P. versus Ambrish Tandon; (2015) 127 RD 855 (FB) and Full Bench Decision of this Court in the case of Pushpa Sareen versus State of U.P.; 2015 SCC OnLine All 2935.
5. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of exemplars indicated in the spot inspection report itself which clearly indicated surrounding properties to be valued at Rs. 550/- per square meter which was implemented in the sale deed dated 29.09.1996 as well. It is submitted that the exemplar provided by petitioner was inapplicable and therefore was rightly discarded by the authorities concerned.
6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is quite evident that proceedings against petitioner was initiated vide report dated 29.09.1996 indicating deficiency of Stamp Duty in the instrument of transfer dated 28.09.1996. During the course of proceedings, spot inspection dated 07.01.1998 was also undertaken. A perusal of the reports dated 29.09.1996 and 07.01.1998 make it evident that they do not indicate any prior notice having been issued to petitioner for conduct of spot inspection. Presence of petitioner during this conduct of spot inspection is also missing.
7. Rule 7 (3) (c) of the Rules of 1997 clearly stipulates prior notice being provided to the assessee before conduct of spot inspection and his presence at that time.
8. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ganga Ram (supra) has already held Rules 7 (3) (c) of Rules, 1997 to be mandatory in nature. In the case of Ram Khelawan (supra) it has been held that violation of Rule 7 (3) (c) of the Rules 1997 vitiates the entire proceedings.
9. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present case, it is evident that there is clear violation of Rule 7 (3) (c) of the Rules, 1997 inasmuch as there is neither any prior notice to theassessee nor is his presence indicated at the time of spot inspection.
10. Another aspect to be considered is that although the report dated 29.09.1996 has adverted to exemplars pertaining to sale deeds executed in close vicinity of property in question, the prescribed authority exercising power under Section 47A of the Act has not considered the same. It is also evident that petitioner had also submitted exemplars sale deed dated 31.12.1997 which has been discarded only on the ground that it is subsequent to the sale deed in the present case.
11. It is also quite apparent that the impugned order has been passed only on the basis of the spot inspection report.
12. In the case of Ambrish Tandan as well asPushpa Sareen (supra), the aspect of potentiality and future use of a property under instrument of transfer has been considered to the effect that the current use of a property as on the date of instrument of transfer is the only aspect required to be considered and not any future use. Potentiality of land is also required to be seen as on the date of execution of sale deed.
13. From a perusal of orders impugned under Section 47A as well as under Section 56 of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid aspects have not been kept in mind.
14. It is also evident that despite specific plea being taken by petitioner not only in the objections to the spot inspection report but also in the memorandum of revision pertaining to violation of Rule 7 (3) (c) of the Rules of 1997, the authorities concerned appear to have deliberately ignored the same.
15. In conclusion, it being apparent that impugned order dated 15.06.1998 passed under Section 47A of the Act as well as the revisional order dated 24.03.2008 passed in Revision No. 77/153-Barabanki being against the mandatory provisions of law are hereby set aside. Consequences to follow.
16. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost.
Order Date :- 6.5.2024
Satish
