Back
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Deepesh Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. An agricultural piece of land was purchased by the petitioners alongwith others by registered sale-deed dated 13.7.2005. A reference was made by the Sub-Registrar immediately after two days, i.e. on 15.7.2005 mentioning that deficient stamp duty has been paid by the petitioners considering the location of the land transferred and, after making calculations, the Sub Registrar made following request to the Collector:
3. Therefore, the deficiency, which was worked out at the time of initiation of proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was Rs. 8,37,000/- (rupees eight lac thirty seven thousand).
4. The stamp case was registered against the petitioners being Case No. 137 of 2009, in which an order was passed by the Collector, Mahamaya Nagar on 24.12.2009 working out deficiency in payment of stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 30,11,160/- (rupees thirty lac eleven thousand one hundred sixty) alongwith penalty of Rs. 6,02,232/- (rupees six lac two thousand two hundred thirty two) total demand being Rs. 36,13,392/- (rupees thirty six lac t
Notices lacking specific details regarding deficiencies in Stamp Duty violate principles of natural justice, rendering recovery orders invalid.
The limitation period for initiating proceedings for deficient stamp duty under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act is three years.
Recovery proceedings for deficit stamp duty must be initiated within three years from the date of registration of the instrument, and the person concerned must be given a reasonable opportunity of be....
The necessity of conducting a spot inspection before determining stamp duty to ensure assessments are based on factual evidence rather than presumptions.
Procedural non-compliance in property valuation hearings renders resulting orders invalid, necessitating fresh proceedings to ensure parties are duly notified and allowed to participate.
No revenue recovery proceedings can be initiated without a final order under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act.
Point of Law : Expression "reason to believe" is not synonymous with subjective satisfaction of the officer - Belief must be held in good faith, it cannot be merely a pretence.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
