Collector and order was passed on a public holiday, before the High Court as well as in this Court, the respondents herein have placed the order sheet which companytains the various dates and the date on which the ultimate decision was taken by him.
In other words, for the purpose of stamp duty and registration, according to the respondents, they added additional 10 to the value.
Brief Facts A Sale Deed dated 16.04.2003 was executed between Har Charan Singh and the respondents herein in respect of the property situated at 17/1 Ashok Marg, Lucknow measuring 11,029 sq.
and registered as Sale Deed Document No.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the State has preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.
8,46,000/ for such tax evasion.
However, it had gone into the details as to the area of the plot, nature of the building i.e. whether it is residential or number residential and based on the revenue records and after finding that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the house was used for residential purpose upheld the stand taken by the respondents and set aside the order dated 27.09.2004 passed by the Addl.
In support of the companytention that they were number given adequate opportunity by the Addl.
732 of 2005 before the High Court.
732 M B of 2005 whereby the Division Bench while allowing the petition filed by the respondents herein issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.09.2004 passed by the Additional Collector Finance Revenue , Lucknow and the demand numberice dated 20.01.2005.
In all fairness, the High Court instead of keeping the writ petition pending and deciding itself after two years companyld have remitted the matter to the Addl.
Vide order dated 27.09.2004, the Additional Collector Finance Revenue Lucknow directed the respondents to make good the deficiency in the stamp duty and also imposed a penalty amounting to Rs.
38,78,000/ .
653 Stamp 2003 under Sections 47A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in short the Act was registered.
with a two storey building having an area of 5,646.3 sq.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.09.2004 and demand numberice dated 20.01.2005, the respondent filed a writ petition being No.
During inspection, the land has been found having an area of 12,099 sq.
38,30,500/ plus 10 recovery charges was issued and the respondents herein were directed to pay the said amount within a period of seven days.
Heard Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, learned Addl.
By order dated 25.01.2007, the High Court, while allowing the petition filed by the respondents herein issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.09.2004 passed by the Additional Collector Finance Revenue , Lucknow and the demand numberice dated 20.01.2005.
The District Magistrate, Lucknow made a spot inspection of the property in question on 21.07.2003.
at the first floor.
15.53 lakhs was paid.
15,53,000/ as Stamp duty, hence a deficiency of Rs.
23,50,000/ has been pointed out by the authorities.
3,87,74,097/ and the stamp duty on the said property has been calculated by the companypetent authority as Rs.
15,53,000/ as stamp duty.
at ground floor and an area of 5192.3 sq.
The District Magistrate, vide report dated 26.07.2003, directed to register a case against the respondents herein On the basis of the aforesaid report, Case No.
On 20.01.2005, for failure to deposit the aforesaid amount, a demand numberice claiming an amount of Rs.
It is also stated that at the time of sale deed the house was a residential property and in order to avoid unnecessary harassment at the hands of the revenue and for the purpose of stamp duty and registration they had valued the said property at the rate fixed by the Collector, Lucknow treating the land as companymercial at the rate of Rs.11,300 per sq.
1,55,28,860/ for the purposes of Stamp Duty and the respondents herein paid Rs.
It shows that the matter was heard and decided on a public holiday.
This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 25.01.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.
The total value of the property was companyputed as Rs.
5341 of 2003.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
Collector for fresh orders.
metre.
Collector.
Advocate General for the appellant State and Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior companynsel for the respondents.
When the Additional Collector issued a numberice under Section 47A/33 of the Act, the respondents submitted objection dated 29.08.2003 stating that the extent, area and valuation are in accordance with the revenue records and the stamp duty paid by them on the sale deed was proper.
However, at the time of purchase, respondents herein paid Rs.
In the inspection report, the property in question has been valued for Rs.
It is also stated by the respondents that before passing the order dated 27.09.2004, the Additional Collector Finance and Revenue Lucknow has number afforded sufficient opportunity to them and the impugned order was passed in a most arbitrary manner ignoring the objection submitted by them.
