Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15876/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15876 of 2010
=========================================================
SHAH
MAHENDRAKUMAR HARJIVANDAS - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEPUTY
COLLECTOR & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SL VAISHYA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 24/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Petitioner
has challenged an order dated 22nd November 2009, by which
the competent authority under the Bombay Stamp Act has directed the
petitioner to pay deficient stamp duty of Rs.1,94,365/- along with
penalty of Rs.250/- on the sale deed by which the petitioner
purchased non-agricultural land admeasuirng 13,243 sq. meters. The
petitioner had purchased the said non-agricultural land in Rajpur
village of Deesa Taluka by registered sale deed dated 11th
June 2009. By assessing value of the property at Rs.17 lacs and by
declaring the sale consideration at Rs.17,01,219/-, stamp duty of
Rs.83,500/- was paid. The Authority under the Bombay Stamp Act found
that the document was deficiently stamped and proceedings were,
therefore instituted. Notices were served on the petitioner.
Despite sufficient opportunities and adjournments of the proceedings
on 9.7.09, 3,8.2009, 24.9.2009 and 27.10.09, no one appeared for the
petitioner. After giving such opportunities, the Deputy Collector
on the basis of the Government jantri rates found that the market
value of the property in question would be Rs.56,70,700/. He
accordingly assessed the stamp duty of such document at
Rs.2,77,865/- and after deducting the stamp of duty of Rs.83,500/-
already paid, demanded differential stamp duty of Rs.1,94,615/-.
The
petitioner challenged the said order by filing appeal. The appellate
authority, by reasoned speaking order dated 21st July
2010, dismissed the appeal. The appellate authority found that
sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner. He had,
however, not availed of such opportunities. The Deputy Collector
has relied on the Government jantri rates. No illegality is
therefore committed. The appeal was therefore dismissed. The
petitioner has not even assailed this appellate order. In any case,
I find no illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Collector or
by the appellate authority. After giving ample opportunities,
finding that the petitioner has not made any representation, the
competent authority applied the Government jentri rates for
assessing the value of the property on which basis deficient duty was
demanded. No illegality is therefore committed.
Counsel
for the petitioner , however, submitted that in the same area, the
authorities had adopted lower rates in other cases. However,
there is nothing on record to establish the same before the
authorities. Admittedly, the petitioner had not participated before
the Deputy Collector. The petition is therefore dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top