Allahabad High Court
Dr Ambar Varyani vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 8 April, 2025
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50552
Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1156 of 2024
Petitioner :- Dr Ambar Varyani
Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 27.12.2023 passed by respondent no. 3 in Stamp Appeal No. 84/23-24 and the order dated 23.8.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 in Case. No. 00184/2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mother and brother of the petitioner has gifted a residential plot number 122 / 725, Harihar Nagar, Shatri Nagar, Kanpur Nagar ( area 222.96 sq. meter which is 2/3rd of whole plot having area 334.44 sq. meter) through registered gift deed dated 25.6.2019. After execution of the said gift deed, exparte report dated 21.1.2020 was prepared on the basis of which the proceedings under Section 33 / 47 A was initiated in which the notice was issued to the petitioner to which he has submitted report but being not satisfied with the same, the impugned order has been passed by which deficiency of stamp together with penalty and interest has been imposed by the order dated 23.8.2023. The petitioner has challenged the said order in appeal, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 27.12.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present proceedings itself is bad as the proceeding under Section 47 A cannot be initiation for determining the market value of the said property as it is a gift deed. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of UP and others (Writ C No. 13275 of 2024) Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:2820.
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned orders.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records.
7. Admittedly, gift deed dated 25.6.2019 was executed in favour of the petitioner by his mother but the same has been treated as sale deed by the authorities without having any cogent material.
8. This Court in the case of Sumit Gupta Vs. State of UP, 2011 (113) RD 204 has held in para nos. 13 & 14 as under:-
"In conveyance, such as sale of property, generally two parties, ie. seller and purchaser are involved and the market value of the property is determined on the basis of the market forces ie., demand and supply of the commodity. In a deed of gift it is only the person making the gift who is relevant. It is up to him how he values his property. The value of the property in the eyes of the person receiving the gift is not material. This being the situation, the legislature has deliberately used the word "value of the property" in Article 33 while subjecting the gift to stamp duty and has refrained from using the term "market value".
Accordingly, when market value is not at all relevant for levying stamp duty on a gift deed the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act does not come into play which necessitate determination of market value."
9. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by judgment of this Court passed in the case of Sheel Mohan Bansal Vs. State of UP, Writ C No. 18282 of 2023 decided on 10.4.2023. The relevant paragraph of the same is being quoted-here-in-below:-
"6. In light of the above judgement, it is patently clear that for levying stamp duty on a gift deed, the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act do not come into play. Furthermore, there is no requirement of determination of market value in case of gift deeds. This judgement was accepted by the authorities and has attained finality. The aforesaid judgment was thereafter cited in Vijay Kumar (Supra) and a coordinate Bench has held that Section 47-A of the Act would have no application whatsoever. The said principle was thereafter, reiterated by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Sai Janseva And Another (Supra).
7. Upon a perusal of the judgements provided above, it is clear that in case of a gift deed that has been accepted and registered, the authorities cannot take reference to Sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act and suo moto seek additional stamp duty based on the market value of the property. However, the question arises that in the case of under valuation that may have been done by the executor of the instrument what recourse is available to the authorities.
8. In my view, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides for various provisions that may be acted upon that are provided in Sections 27, 33, 62, 62-A, 64 and 64-B, wherein, if adequate stamp duty has not been affixed, the authorities can proceed against the executor for prosecution and collection of deficit stamp duty. However, the authorities cannot proceed under Section 47-A of the Act which is what has been done in the present case. It is also seen, that the respondents have not taken into account the judgements cited by the petitioner and proceeded to adjudicate upon their whims and fancies. It was incumbent upon the authorities to have taken note of the judgements cited by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order on the same, which has clearly not been done in the present case. The authorities are directed to be far more cautious in their approach in quasi judicial activities being carried out by them."
10. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Rakesh Sharma Vs. State of UP and others (Writ C No. 33721 of 2021) wherein while setting aside the order impugned therein, this Court has held that the gift deed cannot be treated as a sale deed and stamp duty disclosed therein taken to be corrected.
11. In view of the above facts as stated as well as law laid down as referred herein above, the impugned orders dated 27.12.2023 and 23.8.2023 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
13. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders shall be refunded to him along with interest @ 4% per annum to him from the date of deposit till actual payment is made, within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 8.4.2025
Rahul Dwivedi/-
