Nipun Jain vs State Of Punjab And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 7225 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Nipun Jain vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 April, 2024

Author: Deepak Sibal

Bench: Deepak Sibal

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045735-DB




LPA-75-2024                     -1-                  2024:PHHC:045735-DB

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                 CHANDIGARH
113                            LPA-75-2024
                               Date of decision: 04.04.2024
NIPUN JAIN
                                                    Appellant
                        VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS                                      ...Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Present:    Mr. Kewal Krishan Saini, Advocate
            for the appellant.

            Mr. Amit Goyal, Addl. AG, Punjab.
                 ****

DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(ORAL)

(1) The present intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 20.10.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing

the appellant's writ petition filed by him to challenge therein order dated

29.01.2018 passed by Collector, Jalandhar directing the appellant to deposit

deficit stamp duty. Also under challenge was the order dated 07.10.2020

passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division through which the appellant's

appeal filed by him against the aforesaid order of the Collector, Jalandhar

had been dismissed.

(2) The first issue raised before us is that the aforesaid impugned

orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner had been challenged

before the learned Single Judge by the appellant on the ground that, in terms

of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the impugned demand was

time barred but the learned Single Judge even after noticing this contention,

has not opined thereupon.

(3) Learned State counsel very fairly acknowledges that though the

afore issue was raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge and

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045735-DB

LPA-75-2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:045735-DB

was also controverted by the State but in the impugned judgment no finding

thereupon has been returned by the learned Single Judge.

(4) We also find that in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment, the

learned Single Judge has duly recorded the afore submission made on

behalf of the appellant and in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment the

submission made on behalf of the State to oppose the afore issue is also

noticed but a reading of the entire judgment reveals that after having noted

the afore rival contentions, the learned Single Judge has not rendered any

opinion thereupon.

(5) In the light of the above, we find it just and appropriate to remit

the matter to the learned Single Judge with a request to consider and opine

upon the afore rival submissions made on behalf of the contesting parties.

(6) It is clarified that no opinion is being expressed by us on the

other findings by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and

that these findings are left open to be commented upon in appropriate

proceedings after the learned Single Judge renders his opinion on the issue

of limitation.

(7)           Disposed of.

                                                             (DEEPAK SIBAL)
                                                                 JUDGE


                                                    (DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
                                                          JUDGE
April 04, 2024
Nisha Yadav
              Whether reasoned/speaking?            Yes/No
              Whether reportable?                   Yes/No




                                           2 of 2