Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh vs Financial Commissioner Punjab And Ors on 13 March, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038797
CWP-22410-2018 &
CWP-2147-2019 2024:PHHC:038797
207(2 cases) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) CWP-22410-2018
Paramjit Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others
...Respondents
(2) CWP-2147-2019
Paramjit Singh
...Appellant
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others
...Respondents
Date of decision:-13.03.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr.Sherry K. Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner (s) in both the cases.
Mr.Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab
for the respondents in both the cases.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. This order shall dispose of both the above-noted writ
petitions as they involve common questions of law and fact. For the sake
of convenience, factual position is being taken from CWP-22410-2018.
2. Petitioner has moved this Court under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038797
CWP-22410-2018 &
CWP-2147-2019 2024:PHHC:038797
207(2 cases) -2-
setting aside orders dated 24.01.2018, 23.08.2017 and 19.02.2016
(Annexures P7, P6 and P4, respectively) passed by respondents No.1 to 3
whereby he has been ordered to deposit an amount of Rs.4,38,000/-
towards deficiency of stamp duty, registration charges alongwith interest
under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
3. Facts are not in dispute. Petitioner has averred that he
purchased 6 kanal land in village Nandanpur, Tehsil and District
Jalandhar on the basis of jamabandi for the year 2008-09 vide sale deed
dated 24.08.2011, Annexure P1. He was served with a notice dated
19.12.2013, Annexure P2 on the ground that the sale deed has been
undervalued. He submitted his reply. However, vide impugned order,
Annexure P4, petitioner was asked to deposit deficient stamp duty, etc.
Appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 by order
Annexure P6. Petitioner preferred a revision petition, which has been
declined vide order, Annexure P7. These orders have been challenged in
the instant petition. Upon notice, reply has been filed by the official
respondents stating that during audit in the year 2011-12, it was found that
the purchased land was gair mumkin plot as per khasra girdawari for the
year 2010-11. Finding that inadequate stamp duty had been affixed,
matter was referred to the Collector, Jalandhar for initiating proceedings
under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It has been submitted
that the petitioner had deposited stamp duty under a wrong Code.
Reference has been made to order dated 08.04.2011, Annexure R1, to
submit that the purchased land fell in segment Code No.0048 and the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038797
CWP-22410-2018 &
CWP-2147-2019 2024:PHHC:038797
207(2 cases) -3-
petitioner had paid stamp duty by deliberately mentioning that the land is
agricultural. Reference has also been made to spot inspection report dated
16.02.2016, Annexure P5 , prepared by the SDM, Jalandhar - II.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner had
preferred a revision petition, which was not maintainable and has been
rejected as such by respondent No.1. He submits that the revision had
been filed under wrong legal advise. By placing reliance upon the
judgments of this Court in Pankaj Gupta and ors. Versus State of
Haryana and ors., 2014 (3) RCR (Civil) 590 and Asha Rani Versus
Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, 2017 (2) LJR 54, he has argued that
a report, prepared on the basis of inspection done five years later, cannot
form the basis for determining the stamp duty, moreso when the Collector
had not made any independent inquiry. It is his argument that the
Appellate order, Annexure P6 has been passed by the Commissioner -
respondent No.2 without giving any reason and therefore, it cannot be
sustained.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the impugned
orders and by placing reliance upon the report, Annexure P5, he submits
that the stamp duty has been properly assessed.
6. Without adverting to the arguments raised by the counsel for
the petitioner on merits, it is apposite to notice and reproduce the effective
portion of impugned appellate order, Annexure P6, which is as under:
"4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038797
CWP-22410-2018 &
CWP-2147-2019 2024:PHHC:038797
207(2 cases) -4-
received in the case and papers brought on the file. I find that the
order of Collector, Jalandhar under appeal deserves to be
maintained. I find that as per report of SDM, Jalandhar - 2 dated
16.02.2016, there is a colony carved out on the land in dispute and
plots have been made. Dairy is also there. There is no illegality or
perversity in the order of the Collector dated 19.02.2016. There is
no force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed."
7. It is evident from the above that the Appellate Authority has
not dealt to the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner, rather it has
simply 'rubber stamped' the order passed by the Collector without
assigning any reason in support thereof. In M/s Kranti Associates Pvt.
Ltd. and another Versus Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and ors. (2010) 9
SCC 496, Supreme Court has held that reasons have virtually become an
indispensable component of decision making process and facilitate the
process of judicial review by superior Courts. It has observed that a
judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusion as it
operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of power.
The Apex Court is of the view that insistence on reasoning is a
requirement for both judicial accountancy as well as transparency.
8. In M/s Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works Vs. Commissioner
of Income Tax, Mysore and anr. (2005) 2 SCC 329, it has been observed
that although in an order of affirmation, repetition of reasons may not be
necessary, but even then the arguments advanced, points urged have to be
dealt with and reasons for affirmation have to be indicated, though in
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038797
CWP-22410-2018 &
CWP-2147-2019 2024:PHHC:038797
207(2 cases) -5-
appropriate cases they may be briefly stated. As the impugned Appellate
order, Annexure P6 is bereft of reasons and there is non-application of
mind, it cannot be sustained.
9. In view of the above discussion, impugned order, Annexure
P6 passed by Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remitted to
respondent No.2 to decide it again by passing a reasoned order after
hearing the parties.
10. Petition is disposed of.
11. Parties are directed to appear before Commissioner,
Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar - respondent No.2 on 24.04.2024, at 10:00
a.m. for further proceedings.
12. Photocopy of the order be placed on the file of the connected
petition.
13.03.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
