Back
SANJAY DWIVEDI
KRISHNA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, JABALPUR – Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR OF STAMPS, COLLECTOR OFFICE, JABALPUR – Respondent
ORDER : – Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, it is finally heard.
2. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 18-5-2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 46,61,667/- as deficit stamp duty and equal amount of Rs. 46,61,667/- being the penalty and as such, total amount of Rs. 93,23,334/- was directed to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the impugned order.
3. The factual matrix of the case relevant for considering the questions raised are as follows : –
3.1. On the basis of a complaint made by one Mukesh Kumar Jain that the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 on 18-3-2011 (Annexure P/2) was not duly stamped and suffers from deficit stamp duty, the respondent No. 1 passed the impugned ex parte order dated 18-5-2021 (Annexure P/1) giving reference of section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ac
The court established that the authority's power to recover deficit stamp duty is limited to a period of five years from the date of execution of the instrument, as per the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
There is no error in assumption of jurisdiction under Section 33(5) read with Section 40 of the Act. The petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice. That he did. However, i....
Under the Indian Stamp Act, once a document is found to be insufficiently stamped, the court is duty-bound to impound the document and send it to the Collector for proper assessment and payment of th....
The correct procedure to be adopted in cases where the dispute is about the true market value of the property is as per subsections (4) and (5) of Section 32A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The ....
The court ruled that impounding under the Stamp Act is invalid if the instrument is presented for opinion, and penalties cannot be levied without intention to evade duty.
The correct procedure for determining the true market value of the property and recovering deficit stamp duty in cases of dispute is as per sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 32A of the Maharashtra ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
