SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(All) 430

ARUN TANDON
HARI CHAND – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
A.P. Paul and B.B. Paul for the Petitioner; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—In proceedings under Sections 33/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act an order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Mathura dated 31.12.2008 whereunder the petitioner was held liable for payment of stamp duty, which was short paid, alongwith penalty.

2. Not being satisfied with the order, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, being Revision No. 2/3/08-09. The revision has been allowed by the Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Controlling Authority Revenue by means of an order dated 28th May, 2010 and the order of the Additional District Magistrate, demanding the short paid stamp duty and penalty has been set aside. In terms of the order so passed by the revisional authority, the petitioner made an application for refund of the money which he had deposited under the order of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue). Under the impugned order the Additional District Magistrate had directed refund of the money deposited by the petitioner without interest. Hence this petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the interest is necessary corollary to the retention of the











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top