Rajiv Kumar Gupta vs State of U. P. - 2021 Supreme(All) 1731

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 1731

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JAYANT BANERJI, J.
Rajiv Kumar Gupta - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
Writ C No.57646 of 2010
Decided on : 22-11-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: A.P. Paul, B.B. Paul
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

Headnote:(A) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 47-A and 56(1) - Assessment of stamp duty - Order passed by Assistant Commissioner assessing stamp duty based on purported constructions was quashed. Authorities failed to establish existence of constructions at the time of lease execution, thus rendering the assessment unsustainable. - The revision by Additional Commissioner lacks substantive new findings and is thus also quashed. (Paras 4, 6, 8)

(B) Legal Principle - The authority must provide evidence that any constructions existed prior to the execution of a lease-deed to justify stamp duty assessments, failing which such assessments are invalidated. (Paras 4, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the assessment of stamp duty on a property leased for commercial use, wherein the authority relied on an inspection report without concrete evidence of constructions existing at the time of executing the lease.

Findings of Court:
The assessment of constructions and resulting stamp duty was deemed unjustifiable due to lack of evidence confirming construction's existence prior to the lease-deed. The orders were thus quashed.

Issues: Whether the authority's assessment of stamp duty was valid given the absence of evidence regarding the state of the property at severable stages.

Ratio Decidendi: The court enforced a requirement for clear evidence of constructions existing at the time of lease execution as fundamental for lawful stamp duty assessments.

Result: Writ petition allowed; stamp duty deficiency assessed quashed.

Table of Content
1. petition filed to quash stamp duty assessment order. (Para 2 , 3)
2. dispute over reliance on inspection report for valuation. (Para 4 , 5)
3. examination of valuation assessment eligibility. (Para 6 , 7)
4. quashing of stamp duty assessment order due to lack of evidence. (Para 8)
5. writ petition allowed; refund of stamp duty mandated. (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.

1. Heard Shri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Awadesh Chandra Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.10.2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Stamp, Aligarh under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899[Act] whereby value with regard to certain constructions existing on the property in question has been assessed at Rs.8,92,000/-and deficiency in stamp at Rs.89,080/-. Further challenge is to the order dated 17.06.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in Revision No.43/24.4.2009 under Section 56(1) of the Act whereby the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of the Assistant Commissioner has been upheld.

3. A perusal of the petition reveals that the property in question was leased to the petitioner by means of a lease-deed of 08.03.2006, that is stated to be registered on 23.03.2006. The lease-deed reflects that the usage of the leased premises was for setting up a petrol pump/outlet of a Petroleum Company. It appears that a notice dated 19.05.2006 was issued to the petitioner pursuant to proceedings under Section 47-A(3) of the Act. The petitioner filed a reply/objection on 27.02.2007 and also filed an application on 04.10.2007 asking for a fresh inspection of the site in question. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 04.10.2007 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner Stamp relying upon a spot inspection report said to have been prepared by the Sub-Registrar concerned.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that assuming that an inspection report was on record, the same could not have been relied upon as evidence by the authorities to assess the factual situation on the ground inasmuch as the report was ex-parte and it led to the initiation of the proceedings under Section 47-A(3) of the Act. It is contended that the assessing authority had not undertaken any exercise for calculation of the valuation of the leased land, but merely referred to some alleged constructions on the site and calculated the value and assessed the stamp duty payable thereon at the rate of 10% in disregard to the provisions of Article 35(v) of Scheduled 1-B of the Act. It is also contended that at the time of execution of the lease-deed, the property in question was vacant without any boundary wall and no constructions were existing thereon. It is, therefore, contended that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner Stamp is wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act.

5. Shri Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel has strongly opposed the petition and has urged that the report of the Sub-Registrar was made on 04.04.2006 after making a spot inspection of the site in question, as is reflected in paragraph 4 of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in the revision. It is his contention that the spot inspection report was prepared within a month of the execution of the lease-deed and, therefore, the constructions reflected on the site in question were correctly taken notice of by the authority, who has passed the order impugned.

6. The points arising for consideration are whether the deficiency in stamp duty based on the assessment of valuation of the constructions made at the site in question was justified, and, whether the authority was justified in assessing the valuation of the constructions without recording a finding as to their existence on the date of execution of the lease-deed.

7. As noticed above, the spot inspection

Click Here to Read the rest of this document