Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/25/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 25 of 2010
=========================================================
ABC
BUILDERS - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
SHITAL R PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 11/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the Notice issued u/s.39(1)(b) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958
[for short, the Act ] as also the orders dated 02.01.2002 and
15.10.2007, issued by the respondent-authority, by which the
petitioner-firm has been directed to pay a total amount of
Rs.3,19,900/- towards deficit stamp duty and penal interest.
2.0 The
facts in brief are that a land bearing Plot No.49, admeasuring 6000
sq. metres of T.P. Scheme No.1 of mouje Thaltej, Ahmedabad was leased
in favour of the petitioner for a period of 90 years by way of Lease
Deed dated 16.09.1991.
2.1 It
appears that somewhere in 2000 2001, Notice u/s.39(1)(b) of the
said Act was issued to the petitioner-firm, directing the petitioner
to pay an amount of Rs.1,59,960/- towards deficit stamp duty. The
petitioner-firm gave its reply to the said Notice. Pursuant thereto,
the respondent-authority passed an order dated 29.01.2001 directing
the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,29,900/-, which was,
subsequently, revised to Rs.3,19,900, by order dated 02.01.2002.
2.2 Against
the said order, an appeal was filed. However, the said appeal was
dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2007 with a direction to the
petitioner-firm to pay total amount of Rs.3,19,900/-, which included
penal interest of Rs.1,59,950/-.
2.3 Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the respondent-authority, the
petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties. It is a matter of record
that the Lease Deed dated 16.09.1991, in respect of the land in
question, was executed on a stamp paper of Rupees Ten only. As per
the statutory provision, the said Lease Deed could not have been
executed on a stamp paper of Rupees Ten. Therefore, the
respondent-authority was completely justified in imposing deficit
stamp duty in respect of the land in question.
4. A
contention has been raised that the petitioner-firm could not be
saddled with the liability of penal interest inasmuch as the Lease
Deed was executed in 1991 and the impugned Notice issued way back
around 2000-2001. In my opinion, the said contention raised by the
petitioner is devoid of any merits since the imposition of interest
is a statutory provision formulated for non-payment of stamp duty at
the relevant time and is in the nature of penalty.
5. Apart
from that no satisfactory explanation has come from the petitioner as
regards the delay of more than two years caused in filing and hearing
of this petition. Therefore, on the ground of delay also, this
petition does not deserve to be entertained.
6.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is summarily rejected.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
Pravin/*
Top