Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3392/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3392 of 2010
=========================================================
GUJARAT
INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED - Petitioner(s)
Versus
PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
ASPI M KAPADIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 18/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
By way of this petition the
petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated
7.3.2003 passed by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation
Department, Surat. Division-2.
The brief facts of the case
are as under :-
2.1
On 18.3.1998, loan of Rs. 200 lakhs was sanctioned by the
petitioner to Hello Industries Limited for setting up a Water park
cum Resort project at Village-Karjan, Taluka- Palasana, District
Surat. Mortgaged Deed in favour of the petitioner was executed and
registered on 4.4.1998.
2.2
As per the say of the petitioner, the Deputy Collector, being
influenced by the findings of the Office of the CAG, passed the
impugned order for payment of deficit stamp duty of Rs. 5.40 lakhs
plus penalty Rs. 1,000/- and interest @ 15% till payment of stamp
duty by order dated 7.3.2003, which is challenged in this petition.
Heard learned advocates for
the petitioner.
Learned Advocate Mr.
Kapadia appearing for the petitioner contended that the stamp duty
was paid as per Article 36(b)(i) and the mortgage deed which was
registered. Therefore the Deputy Collector has no authority to
re-evaluate and demand higher duty on the basis of different rate of
duty on account of application of a different Article of the
Schedule I of the Stamp Act. Mr. Kapadia has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan
V/s. Krishnamurty, reported in AIR 1998 SC 3222 and contended that
Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties.
In the instant case
impugned
order was passed on 7.3.2003. The petition is therefore
inordinately delayed. In the case of Shiv Dass V. Union of India and
Others, reported in AIR 2007 SC 1330. it is held that if petition
is filed beyond reasonable period,say, three years, normally court
would reject the same or restrict the relief. Therefore this
petition at this stage cannot be entertained. The same is therefore
dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHaveri,J.)
*Himansu
Top