M/S Delhi Punjab Goods Carriers … vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 16 September, 2008

CWP No. 4153 of 2008                                    (1)

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

                                     CWP No. 4153 of 2008
                                     Date of Decision: 16.9.2008


M/s Delhi Punjab Goods Carriers (Regd.)          ......Petitioner

            Versus

The State of Punjab and others                          .....Respondents


Coram:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA


Present:    Shri Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

            Shri Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab.


1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
   judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The present writ petition is directed against the order passed

by the Collector, Jalandhar on 7.5.2007 and the order dated 29.11.2007

passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, in the

proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short

`the Act’) in respect of the instrument of sale dated 25.10.2005.

A finding has been recorded by the authorities under the Act

that the instrument of sale is deficient in stamp duty as it is a

commercial property, but the stamp duty has been paid treating the

same to be a residential property.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued

that the property purchased by the petitioner has been treated to be a

commercial property, merely for the reason that the petitioner is a

partnership firm. In fact, the premises are being used for the residence of

partners and/or staff members of the firm and the same is not even
CWP No. 4153 of 2008 (2)

located on road.

A perusal of the order of the Collector would show that the

basis of the order is the report of the Sub Divisional Officer. The said

report (Annexure P.5) does not give any circumstance as to why the

property is being treated as a commercial property. The said report only

records the conclusion that the property is a commercial property, but

does not give any reason or the circumstance to return a finding that the

property purchased by the petitioner is commercial in nature.

Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The

impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector

for fresh determination on the question of deficient stamp duty, if any.

The learned Collector shall record a categorical finding as to why the

property is to be treated as commercial property.

Allowed in the above terms.

(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
16-09-2008
ds