Authority must conduct an independent inquiry to determine property valuation when stamp duty deficiency is challenged, ensuring compliance with procedural mandates.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Sri S.S.Niam learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Karshit Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the respondents.

2. Present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 29.6.2009 by which deficiency of stamp duty amounting to Rs. 35,69,800/- was imposed; the order dated 31.7.2009 by which recovery citation was issued and the order dated 16.3.2011 by which appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the respondent no.2 confirming the imposition of stamp duty.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is doing the work of repairing and denting painting of vehicles and wheel allighment and has been given registration by the District Industries Centre, Kanpur Nagar which is categorised as 'small scale industries'. On 19.1.2009 a report was prepared by the General Manager of the District Industries Centre, Kanpur for execution of lease and higher purchase agreement and the stamp duty was determined for Rs. 8,62,800/-. On 12.2.2009 a survey was made by the Sub Registrar IV Kanpur Nagar in which allegation was put forward that no industrial activity was undertaken by the petitioner, on the basis of which, proceedings under section 47A of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 was initiated and notice was issued to which reply was submitted by the petitioner on 22.6.2009 before the respondent no.3 raising objection about the ex parte report. Being not satisfied with the said reply the impugned order dated 29.6.2009 was passed holding deficiency of stamp duty amounting to Rs. 35,69,800/- and imposed penalty as well. Against the order dated 22.6.2009 the petitioner preferred appeal before respondent no.2. During the pendency of the appeal respondent no.3 has issued a recovery citation dated 31.7.2009 against the petitioner against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 16.3.2011. Hence the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted small scale industries licence mentioning therein the work of repairing and denting painting of vehicles and wheel alignment and the said business as recognized by the Industries Department was being undertaken and the property in question which was leased out by way of lease deed and higher purchase agreement to which the due stamp duty as quantified by the General Manager of the District Industries Center Kanpur was paid. He further submits that a report was prepared by the Sub Registrar, Kanpur Nagar which could be justified for initiating the deficiency of the stamp duty but once the petitioner specifically raised an objection about the said report the Collector ought to have made spot inspection personally or through competent authority as prescribed under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 (for short 'Rules, 1997). He further submits that once the authority, after disputing the report of the Sub Registrar, has not exercised the said power whole proceedings vitiates and is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in (Deo Prakash Maurya v. State of U.P. And others) (2021 (9) ADJ 451). He prays for allowing the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that under the STAMP ACT , in the property in question, the petitioner was not doing the activity of industrial as neither any production nor any processing of any goods were being undertaken on the contrary only car servicing, denting and painting were being undertaken as well as there was selling of spare parts, therefore he tried to justify