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

2005 Supreme(UK) 381

2005 (2) U.D., 503
High Court of Uttaranchal
Rajesh Tandon, J.
Rai Bahadur Narayan Sugar Mills Ltd
Vs.
State of Uttaranchal and others
Writ Pet. no. 776 (M/S) of 2005,
Decided on : 02-09-2005.

Advocates appeared:
Sri Alok Singh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri Lalit Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The market value of the property should be determined based on the relevant date of the sale deed execution and not on the potential future value of the land.

Headnote:

Stamp Duty - Agricultural Land - Stamp Act, 1899, Section 47-A, Rules 340, 341, 349, U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942, U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 - The court discussed the application of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act and Rules 340, 341, 349, U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942, and U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997 in determining the stamp duty for the purchase of agricultural land. The court emphasized that the market value of the property should be determined based on the relevant date of the sale deed execution and not on the potential future value of the land. It also highlighted that the circle rate is a guiding factor and not a binding principle for determining the market value of the land.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a limited company, purchased agricultural land for a sum higher than the circle rate fixed by the Collector, resulting in a notice for deficiency in stamp duty. The petitioner challenged the order before the Chief Revenue Commissioner and subsequently filed a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the sale deed was executed in accordance with the circle rate, and the notice issued for deficiency in stamp duty was not based on relevant material and rules. As a result, the court quashed the orders dated 27th May, 2005 and 13th November, 2003 passed by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner and the Collector, respectively.

Issues: The issues involved the determination of stamp duty for the purchase of agricultural land, the applicability of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, and the interpretation of Rules 340, 341, 349, U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942, and U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the market value of the property should be determined based on the relevant date of the sale deed execution and not on the potential future value of the land. It also highlighted that the circle rate is a guiding factor and not a binding principle for determining the market value of the land.

Final Decision: A writ of certiorari was issued quashing the orders dated 27th May, 2005 and 13th November, 2003 passed by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal, Dehradun and by the Collector, Haridwar respectively.

Judgment –

Heard Sri Alok Singh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri Lalit Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 27th May, 2005 and 13'" November, 2003 passed by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal, Dehradun and by the Collector, Haridwar respectively.


3. Briefly stated, the petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1957 and the company having purchased agricultural land of Khasra No. 89 M measuring 0.81 Hectare of village Kehda, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar vide registered sale deed dated 29th June, 2001 for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per circle rate fixed by the Collector, Haridwar at the relevant time, maximum circle rate of land was Rs. 4 lacs per hectare and according to the rate maximum market value of land purchased would be Rs. 3,26,800/-. However, the land was purchased for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs hence the stamp duty of Rs. 80,000/- was paid on the said valuation.

5. Petitioner has submitted that ADM (Finance) has issued a notice under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act stating therein that since the sale deed in question is under valued and the stamp duty has not been paid correctly and hence the demand of the deficient stamp duty was made from the petitioner.

6. The Collector vide his order dated 13th November, 2003 has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5,80,300/- towards stamp duty and 3,40,980/ - towards interest and penalty amounting to Rs. 8,21,380/- on the basis of the potential value of the land, which was purchased by the petitioner.

7. Petitioner has filed the written submission on 20-10-2003 and has also filed the two Government Orders dated 12th January, 1998 and 16th August, 1999.

8. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 13th November, 2003 before the Chief Revenue Commissioner by filing Revision No. 1/03-04. The revision was dismissed and hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

9. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State, where it has been stated that the land is situate in urban commercial area and is adjoining to the sugar mill and as such the rates applicable to agriculture land cannot be made applicable to the land in question for the purpose of payment of stamp duty.

10. A finding recorded by the revisional court shows that the land is an agricultural land but since the land in question is adjacent to the company of the petitioner, therefore, the same cannot be believed that the land in question shall not be used for the company purposes.

11. Neither the State Counsel nor the courts below have disputed that according to the circle rate at the relevant time the value of the property was Rs. 3,26,800/- and the stamp duty has been paid to the extent of Rs. 80,000/-.

12. Similarly situated land was purchased by the company arising out of Sale deed dated 27-4-2001 and in accordance with the circle rate, the stamp duty was paid to the extent of Rs. 99,000/- and the Commissioner having found that there was no infirmity in the payment of stamp duty and as such the Commissioner has allowed the revision and the deficiency as well as the stamp duty as indicated by the Assistant Collector was set aside by the Commissioner in Revision No. 11 of 2001-02 and the said order has been challenged by the State of U.P. in Writ Petition No. 595 of 2005 (M/S) and the said writ petition has been dismissed and the order has been confirmed.

13. G.O. dated 12th January, 1998 also provides that the potential value of the land has not to be looked into but the same has to be in accordance with the circle rate alone. Relevant paragraph of l. e G.O. is quoted below:-

14. Section 47-A of the Stamp Act provides as under :-

"47-A. Under-valuation of instrument- [(1) (a) If the market value of any property, which is the subject of any instrument, on which duty is cha




















































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top