Uttarakhand High Court
M/S Jindal Refineries Pvt. Ltd. ... vs State Of Uttarakhand on 11 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 829 (MS) of 2012
M/s Jindal Refineries Pvt. Ltd. .................Petitioners.
-Versus-
State of Uttarakhand. .........Respondent.
Present:
Shri Pulak Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State / respondent.
With
Writ Petition No. 828 (MS) of 2012
M/s Jindal Refineries Pvt. Ltd. .................Petitioners.
-Versus-
State of Uttarakhand. .........Respondent.
Present:
Shri Pulak Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State / respondent.
Sri S.K.Mishra, J.
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 11.11.2021
1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in
both the writ petitions, therefore, with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions are heard together
and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Shri Pulak Agarwal, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the
State.
3. In these two writ petitions filed under Article 226 and
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, M/s Jindal
Refineries - petitioner has assailed the orders dated 24.01.2012
passed by the Revisional Authority in Stamp Revision No. 34
(2005-06) /1 (2011-12) and Stamp Revision No. 33 (2005-06) /1
(2011-12). Petitioner Company has been established under the
Companies Act with an objective to process agricultural produce
for preparation of oil. The petitioner company had purchased
certain lands from different agriculturists and paid stamp duty
thereon, as if, the purchase has been made for the agricultural
purposes. The Sub Registrar, Kashipur, held a deficiency of
stamp duty of Rs. 1,36,000/- and Rs. 95,940/- on the sale deeds.
He sent a letter to the Collector for realizing the deficit stamp
duty. Case bearing nos. 52/66 of 2003-04 and 52/67 of 2003-04
were registered. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the material available on record, the Additional
Collector (Revenue and Finance), Udham Singh Nagar came to
the conclusion that there is no deficiency in stamp duty.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the State preferred a revision before the
Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital for payment of deficit
stamp duty on the ground that purchase has been made for the
purpose of industrial use of the land. Hence, higher amount of
stamp duty should be paid. It was pleaded before the learned
Addl. Commissioner that petitioner is carrying industrial and
commercial activities within the jurisdiction of Kumaon Division
and as per law laid down by various courts, immovable property
purchased by industrial unit should be affixed with stamp duty
keeping in view its future use and industrial & commercial
activities, therefore, State of Uttarakhand claimed that the
amount of stamp duty paid by the Company is inadequate.
5. The petitioner company took a stand that it had purchased
the lands for agricultural purposes and not for commercial
purposes. However, later on, it has filed applications under
Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, for conversion of the said lands from agricultural to non
agricultural purposes.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid considerations, learned Addl.
Commissioner came to the conclusion that lands were originally
agricultural lands and lands had been purchased by the
petitioner for the use of non agricultural use and that there is
deficit stamp duty of Rs. 1,36,000/- and Rs. 95,940/- and he has
fastened the liability on the petitioner for its payment.
7. This Court is of the opinion that industrial unit, which
indulged in industrial and commercial activities, pollutes the
environment, has corporate social responsibility and for a meagre
amount of Rs. 1,36,000/- and Rs. 95,940/- should not have
approached this Court. Moreover, in exercise of jurisdiction of
Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution or general
superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court
finds no plausible reason to come to the conclusion that order
passed by the Revisional Court requires any interference. Further,
there is no allegation that order passed is dehors the jurisdiction or
that this order has been passed in complete disregard of the Rules
or prescribed procedure. Hence, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with matter.
8. This Court is inclined to impose costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- on
the petitioner Company but the learned counsel for the petitioner
has assured this Court that in case, costs is not imposed, then
deficit stamp duty shall be paid within 45 days from today. In
that view of the matter, this Court is not imposing any costs. Both
the writ petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit.
9. Let copy of this order be placed in the connected petition.
10. Urgent copy of this judgment be provided to the counsel for
the parties, as per Rules. No order as to costs.
(S.K.Mishra)
Judge
SKS
