IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 564 of

2024 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 114 of 2024 With R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 114 of 2024 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16112 of 2016 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 114 of 2024 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16112 of 2016 ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus RAMCHAND PESSUMAL VATIANO SINCE DECD. THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS ==========================================================

Appearance:

MS. HETAL PATEL, AGP, for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 05/02/2024

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

Order in Civil Application (Condonation of Delay) No. 564 of 2024 The delay of 188 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, delay is condoned. Present Civil Application is allowed. Registry is directed to give pakka number to the Appeal.

Order in Letters Patent Appeal No. 114 of 2024

1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition quashing the orders dated 17.05.2012 and 22.05.2016 passed by the Stamp Authorities invoking Article-44(3)(a) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 to levy stamp duty on the dissolution deed of partnership firm which was registered on 14.07.2009 on non-

judicial stamp paper of Rs. 100/- as per the prevailing law.

2. It seems that the proceedings were initiated on an audit objection of an inspection team of Accountant General’s Office, wherein the dissolution deed was termed as short / deficit of stamp duty. The recoveries were initiated against the petitioner.

3. It is argued by the learned AGP Ms. Hetal Patel appearing for the State – appellants that as per the dissolution deed of partnership dated 14.07.2009, rights in three immovable properties were distributed amongst two partners, whereas third partner did not get any right in the immovable property. The attention of the Court is invited to the documents on record appended with the memo of appeal to demonstrate that there were three partners of the partnership firm namely M/s Kishanchand Laxmandas. The description of the properties which were distributed amongst two partners namely Ramchand Pesumal Vatiyani and Sureshmal Pesumal Vatiyani are noted by learned Single Judge in the paragraph no. 5.4 of the judgment impugned.

4. It is argued by the learned AGP Ms. Patel that since the immovable properties of the partnership firm were distributed only amongst two partners leaving the third one, without distribution of any right or interest in the immovable properties of the partnership firm, it would be treated as a transfer of the rights in the property in favour of two partners, and hence, the provisions of Article 44(3)(a) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 would be attracted. Further reference has been made to the decision of this Court in the case of Chief Controller Revenue Authority versus Chaturbhuj and Bachubhai Tribhovandas Thakkar reported in 1976(0) GLR 898, to assert that the facts stated therein are different and, hence, reliance placed on the said decision is a result of misapplication of the same.

5. To consider the submissions of learned AGP, we may record that there is no dispute about the fact that the subject properties were purchased by the partnership firm and they were distributed amongst the partners of the firm at the time of dissolution in terms and conditions of the dissolution deed dated 14.07.2009.

6. It is not a case where the immovable properties distributed amongst the partners of the firm, have been brought by any other partner (third