[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private ... vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority ... on 20 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2139/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2139 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes --
==========================================
SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR AMRISH D AHIR(10806) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. JAIMIN R DAVE(7022) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. YASH B SIKKA(17310) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV SHARMA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 20/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, learned
Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for
respondents.
2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2139/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
and disposal.
3. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Gujarat
Stamp Act, 1958 seeking following reliefs:-
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash and set
aside the impugned order / communication dated
13.12.2025 passed by Respondent No.1.
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash and set
aside the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by
Respondent No.2 whereby Stamp Duty and
Penalty is imposed on the Petitioner under Section
39 of the Stamp Act;
In the alternative,
YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct
Respondent No.1 to consider application filed
under Section 53 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958
along with connected application afresh on merits
after affording the Petitioner a reasonable
opportunity of personal hearing, in accordance
with law and within such time as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit.
(C) Pending hearing, adjudication and final disposal of
this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to
direct Respondents to deposit before the registry
of this Hon'ble Court a sum of Rs.14,60,54,795/-
(Rupees Fourteen Crores Sixty Lakhs Fifty Four
Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Five only) along
with interest at the rate of 12% payable from the
date of protest letter dated 05.08.2025.
(D) Any other and further Relief deemed just and
proper be granted in the interest of justice; and
(E) To provide for the cost of this petition."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2139/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
4. It is contended that the petitioner has challenged the order /
communication dated 13.12.2025 passed by respondent No.1
whereby without affording any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, rejected the application filed by the petitioner under
Section 53 read with Section 44 of the Gujarat Stamp Act (for short
"the Act") on the ground that it was barred by law of limitation which
is illegal, arbitrary and breach of the principles of natural justice. It is
contended that without issuing any notice and/or affording any
opportunity of hearing, respondent No.1 has proceeded to reject
revision application preferred under Section 53 read with Section 44
of the Act on the ground that application seeking refund of stamp
duty is time barred under Section 44(2) of the Act. It is also contended
that respondent No.1 has failed to appreciate that the petitioner that
the petitioner had filed application challenging the order dated
22.07.2025 passed by respondent No.2 and consequentially sought
refund of the stamp duty and penalty paid under protest pursuant to
order dated 22.07.2025 passed by respondent No.2 as per Section 44
of the Act. It is further contended that respondent No.1 has failed to
appreciate that without pressing Section 44 of the Act into service,
the revision was maintainable under Section 53 of the Act and it
ought to have been adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of
the Act.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondents at length. Perused the
material placed on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2139/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
averments made in the petition and submissions of learned counsel
for the respective parties, it appears that the petitioner has filed
revision application under Section 53 r/w. Section 44 of the Act along
with the application for condonation of delay, which came to be
rejected by respondent No.1 without affording any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, the present petition is filed.
Considering the aforesaid aspect, this Court is of the opinion that the
petition deserves to be allowed.
7. It is worthwhile to refer to Section 53 of the Act which reads as
under:-
"53. Control of and statement of case to Chief controlling
Revenue Authority. - (1) the powers exercisable by a
Collector under [Chapter III, Chapter IV and Chapter V] and
under clause (a) of the first proviso to section 27 shall in all
cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority:
[Provided that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority shall
not entertain an application made by a person under sub-
section (1), unless, -
(a) such application is presented within a period of [ninety
days] from the date of order of the Collector:
[Provided that if the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is
satisfied that such person was prevented for sufficient
reasons from presenting the application within the period
specified above, he may allow such person to present the
application within a further period of ninety days on
payment of non-refundable amount of rupees one
thousand for every thirty days or part thereof.]
(b) such person deposits twenty-five per cent, of the
amount of duty or as the case may be amount of difference
of duty payable by him in respect of subject matter of the
instrument for which application has been made:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2139/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
(2) If any Collector, acting under section 31 [section 32A]
section 39 or section 40 feels doubt as to the amount of
duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may
draw up a statement of the case, and refer it, with his own
opinion thereon, for the decision of the Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority.
(3) Such authority shall consider the case and send a
copy of its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed to
assess and charge the duty (if any) in conformity with such
decision."
8. It is now well settled that if the Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority is decided the application without giving any opportunity of
hearing to the parties in order to exercise power under Section 53(a)
of the Act, the action of the respondents deserves to be quashed and
set aside. In view of the aforesaid aspects, it appears that the action
on the part of respondent No.1 in rejecting the revision application
without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is illegal,
unjust and arbitrary and the same deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order /
communication dated 13.12.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside
and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 - authority to
hear afresh after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and
considering the contentions raised by the petitioner available under
the law and decide the same in accordance with law and on merits as
early as possible. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
