The court ruled that under Section 23 of the Indian Stamp Act, stamp duty cannot be charged on interest, affirming that the reference for additional duty was unjustified.

JUDGMENT :

PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

1. Heard Mr. C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Nisheeth Yadav for the petitioner and Mr. Siddharth Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Writ C No. 1920 of 2018 has been filed for quashing the reference dated 18.10.2012 in Stamp Suit No. 119/2012-13 and Writ C No. 30283 of 2018 has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.5.2018 and 21.7.2018 as well as recovery citation dated 28.8.2018.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned reference dated 18.10.2012 as well as consequential notices are without jurisdiction and during pendency of present Writ C No. 1920 of 2018, the impugned orders have been passed, which are under challenge in the subsequent Writ C No. 30283 of 2018. He submits that when the reference itself is without authority of law as per Section 23 of Stamp Act and the present writ petition may be allowed, then all consequential action and orders automatically goes.

4. Brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petitions are that the petitioner is private limited company incorporated under the provisions of ‘The Indian Companies Act, 1956’ having its business of infrastructure development. Yamuna Express Way Development Authority has been constituted under Section 3 of the UP Industrial Development Act, 1976 in District Gautam Buddha Nagar. The State Government in exercise of its power under the Land Acquisition Act has acquired the land of village Jaganpur and handed over the same to the authorities for planned development and in pursuance thereof a scheme was floated for allotment of Residential Township bearing YEA-RT-01 to which the petitioner’s company has applied. After scrutiny a letter dated 14.6.2010 was issued whereby Plot No. TS-01 in Sector 26 A was allotted to the petitioner. As per Clause 6 of the authority letter dated 20.7.2010, the payment of stamp duty @ 5 % of the total premium has been computed by the development authority and in pursuance thereof the petitioner paid the premium amount. Thereafter the lease deed was executed on 31.7.2010 but subsequent thereto a reference was made by Sub Registrar to the Collector Stamp on 18.10.2012, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has paid the stamp duty upon actual total premium of the land and not over the interest, which has been paid to the authority in 20 equal installments. On the said reference, Stamp Suit No. 119/2012-13 was registered and notices were issued to the petitioner alleging deficiency of stamp duty, on the ground that amount of interest were not included while paying stamp duty. Thereafter the petitioner has challenged the said reference before this Court by means of Writ C No. 1920 of 2018.

5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the reference dated 18.10.2012 itself is bad and without authority of law, which is in the teeth of Section 23 of UP Stamp Act. He submits that the Development Authority as per scheme has contemplated for payment of 5 % of stamp duty on the total premium fixed, while allotting the land. The said fact has been mentioned in Annexure No. 5 of the writ petition. Further, the proceedings have been initiated on the alleged ground that apart from the total premium, the petitioner has paid interest to which the amount of premium has been enhanced against which no stamp duty has been paid. He su