SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 2561

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH MATHUR
Munna – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anoop Srivastava Ii

JUDGMENT :

Manish Mathur, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 23.12.2006 passed under Section 47A of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 indicating deficiency in payment of stamp duty with regard to the sale deed dated 10.11.2004. Penalty and interest have also been imposed. Also under challenge is the order dated 25.10.2012 passed under Section 56 of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 rejecting appeal.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the authorities concerned have completely ignored plea raised by petitioner that construction found on the property was infact made subsequent to the date of purchase of the plot and therefore should not have been taken into account for purposes of imposition of stamp duty. It is also submitted that no spot inspection worth the name took place and as such, no actual measurements of the alleged constructions were ever taken due to which also calculation of stamp duty is erroneous.

4. It is also submitted that the authorities have also not taken into account the fact that the said constructions were raised illegally wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top