SARAL SRIVASTAVA
Chandra Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.-Heard Sri U.K. Sexena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Om Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the National Highway Authority of India.
2. This Court proceeds to deal with the writ petition concerning the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioners').
3. The petitioners have approached this Court by means of the present writ petition for the following relief :
B. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.6.2018 passed by the respondent No. 1.
C. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authority to not take any coercive action of the order dated 29.1.2018 and 13.11.2017 in pursuance of the show-caus
Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India and others
Duncans Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others
Javed and others v. State of Haryana and others
Residents Welfare Association, Noida v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
Smt. Pushpa Sareen v. State of U.P.
State of Rajasthan and others v. Khandaka Jain Jewellersm
Union of India and others v. V.K.C Footsteps India Private Limited
Vijay Kumar and another v. Commissioner, Meerut Division and another
The court ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to stamp duty exemption as they did not meet the criteria set by the Government Order, affirming the principle of reasonable classification unde....
The Collector must follow due process and provide notice before determining stamp duty; reliance on ex-parte inspections without evidence contravenes procedural laws.
The necessity of conducting a spot inspection before determining stamp duty to ensure assessments are based on factual evidence rather than presumptions.
The sale by tender does not constitute a public auction under Article 18 of the Indian Stamp Act, allowing the Collector to reassess market value and stamp duty under Section 47-A.
The provision mandating a 50% deposit for reference under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act was found unconstitutional as it violated the principle of equal protection under Article 14.
The potential use of land at the time of sale is critical in determining stamp duty, and the burden of proof lies with the state to show that the correct duty was not paid.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.