Important Point – Appeal cannot be dismissed on misplaced ground of limitation.

N.V. Anjaria, J. (Oral) - Draft amendment dated 31.12.2015 tendered today is allowed. The amendment shall be carried out forthwith.

2. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jyoti Bhatt waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents-State authorities.

2.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned advocates for parties, the petition is taken for final consideration.

3. The petitioner has prayed to set aside orders dated 10.02.2014 passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Organisation, Surat, as well as order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the Chief Controlling Authority - the respondent No.1 herein.

3.1 By the first mentioned order dated 10.2.2014, the Deputy Collector required the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty Rs. 64,90,468/- plus Rs. 1,000/- towards penalty. The said order was passed in exercise of powers under section 39(1)(b) of the Act. Against that order, appeal under section 53(1) came to be preferred by the petitioner before the respondent No.1 authority who dismissed the same as per the impugned order dated 15.10.2014. It was on two grounds that the authority dismissed the appeal. Firstly that the appeal was beyond the prescribed statutory period of 90 days, and secondly that the petitioner had not deposited 25% of the deficit stamp duty, which was a condition for preferring the appeal.

3.2 The facts available from the pleadings of the petition are inter alia that the petitioner and his three sisters executed a partition deed after the death of their father Shri Ishwarlal Thakorbhai Desai. Their father died on 28.09.2002. The partition deed was in respect of the ancestral property and was executed on 21.7.2012. The same came to be impounded by the sub-Registrar, Katram Gam Surat under section 33 of the Act and notice under section 39(1)(b) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, was issued on 18.09.2012. On 18.01.2014 the petitioner filed reply.

3.3 The Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Department passed an order dated 10.02.2014 asking the petitioner to pay the deficit amount of stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 64,90,468/- plus amount of Rs. 1000/- towards penalty. The aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal/revision before the respondent No.1 Chief Controlling Authority under section 53 of the Act, which was not entertained as per the impugned order on the grounds mentioned above.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Mayank K. Trivedi submitted that the reason of delay in filing the appeal supplied by respondent No.1 authority was not sustainable. He submitted that the order of the Collector was passed on 10.02.2014, which was dispatched by the office of the Deputy Collector-respondent No.2 on 12.02.2014 and the petitioner thereafter received the same. Learned advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the court to the aspect that the order of the Deputy Collector was dispatched by registered A. D. post on 12.2.2014. From the extract of journal of uninsured registered letters of the Department of Post; copy of which is produced as Annexure-I along with the draft amendment tendered and granted today, it was shown that the entry no. 13 of which reveals that the envelop was dispatched by the office of the Collector to the petitioner on 12.2.2014.

4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that as per the instructions of the petitioner, he was ready to pay 25% of the deficit stamp duty in accordance with the provisions of section 53(1), but since the authority did not accept the appeal treating it to be time-barred, there was no occasion offered to the petitioner to deposit 25% amount. He, however, submitted on instructions from the petitioner that even today the petitioner is ready to deposit 25% amount in compliance of the condition, if the case is to be accepted.

4.2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader defended the order of respondent No.1 and submitted that appeal was time barred and the petitioner did not comply with the condition of d