Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8230/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8230 of
2010
=========================================================
BHARTIBEN
SANMUKHLAL PAREKH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE
DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RAJESH K SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR ASHVIN J POPAT for Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3.
MR JK SHAH, ASST.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 10/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 Petitioner
is aggrieved by a communication dated 22.02.2010, from the Deputy
Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Authority, (City) Division-1, Rajkot,
whereby he was informed that his appeal against an order of the
Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty was dismissed, as time barred.
2.0 Short
facts are as follows:
2.1 With
respect to a document registered in favour of the petitioner, the
Stamp Duty Authorities assessed and demanded a higher stamp duty of
Rs.1,81,890/-, by an order dated 22.03.2003. As per the provisions of
the Bombay Stamp Act, the petitioner was required to deposit 25 per
cent of the additional stamp duty, while presenting appeal. The
petitioner, however, made a request to the appellate authority,
either to reduce or to waive, such requirement of pre-deposit. The
appellate authority, by an order dated 12.06.2003, permitted the
petitioner to deposit only 12.5 per cent of the stamp duty, demanded.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner, on the very same, deposited
the said amount. Receipt issued by the authorities is produced at
Page-31 of the compilation. He also presented appeal memo on
09.07.2003.
3.0 Learned
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, when the petitioner had
paid the differentiate stamp duty, as required by the appellate
authority, on the very same day, his appeal ought to have been
decided on merits.
4.0 In
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when the question of
pre-deposit was decided only on 12.06.2003 and when the petitioner
had deposited such amount on the very same day, as directed by the
appellate authority and also presented appeal memo, within a few days
thereafter, in the interest of justice, his appeal ought to have been
decided on merits.
5.0 In
the result, the impugned communication dated 22.02.2010 is SET
ASIDE. The appellate authority shall CONSIDER
and DECIDE the appeal of the petitioner on merits. This
petition is disposed of, accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
Umesh/
Top