$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Order: 26.09.2024 + W.P.(C) 5741/2012 MANOJ KATARIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Ms.

Shraddha Bharggav, Mr. Sharan Mehta and Mr. Rohit Sarajwat, Advs.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Astha Gupta, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (ORAL)

1. The grievance of the Petitioner as set out in the present Petition is that the Petitioner has been charged with payment of deficient stamp duty including penalty in respect of its property at Shop No. GF-019 Ground floor measuring approximately licensable area 583 sq. ft. (super area) & 350 sq. ft. covered area, Pacific-Delhi, Najafgarh Road, Khayala, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “subject property”]. In addition, the Petitioner also impugns the notices as well as the assessment order issued in furtherance of the impugned notice(s) and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Notice in the present Petition was issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.09.2012 directing that the Impugned Notices and penalty shall remain stayed. This position has continued as is since then.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

3. It was the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner on 09.06.2010 entered into an agreement/license deed with M/s Pacific Development Corporation Limited [hereinafter referred to as “PDCL”] for taking on license fee basis an area of 583 sq. ft. for a period of nine years in the superstructure commonly known as Pacific Mall situated at Najafgarh Road, Khyala, Delhi for running a watch boutique [hereinafter referred to as “the Agreement”].

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that initially on 13.03.2012, a notice bearing No. F.COS/RG/2011-12/2647-2681 was issued alleging that the Pacific Mall had sold the constructed/given on lease shops and had not paid any stamp duty thereon nor registered the Agreement with the Sub-Registrar of that area.

4.1 In response to the notice, the Petitioner appeared and filed a reply dated 20.03.2012 which is annexed along with the Petition. The Petitioner, in the said reply, set out that it is a license agreement and that there is no agreement to sell and/or to lease between the Petitioner and the Pacific Mall.

4.2 Despite the said reply, on 24.03.2012, a second notice was received by the Petitioner. It was further set out in the notice dated 24.03.2012 that in the event that the Petitioner does not appear, the stamp duty assessed ex-parte at market value at present prevalent circle rates shall be imposed on the Petitioner.

4.3 The Petitioner on 28.03.2012 replied to the said notice again reiterating that there was only a license deed entered into and that the Petitioner was a licensee and there was no agreement to sell or lease Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed entered into.

4.4 The Respondent No. 2 subsequently issued a demand letter dated 02.08.2012, bearing no. F.SDM(RG)/COS/2012-13/9559 calling upon the Petitioner to make payment in the sum of Rs.81,660/- as penalty towards deficient stamp duty. The notice dated 02.08.2012 was followed up by another notice dated 24.08.2012 reiterating the earlier notice. No reasons for this conclusion, that there exists an agreement to lease/sell have however been set out by the Respondents in either of its notices. This led to the filing of the present Petition.

5. The Counter-Affidavit was filed by the Respondents wherein it was contended that after going through the contents of the license agreement that Respondent No.2 opined that the premises were not licensed, but given out on lease. Since, the Agreement dated 09.10.2016 is a lease agreement, the demand for stamp duty has been assessed accordingly. It is further stated that a challan was issued to the representative of the Petitioner stating the total amount of stamp duty has not been paid by the Petitioner.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that on the face of it, the docum