- (1.) The original petitioner is in appeal before us consequent to the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing her writ petition on 17 August 2015 holding that the petitioner had an equally efficacious statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 The Act.
(2.) The writ petition laid challenge to an order dated 10 November 2014 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar holding that the gift deed executed in favor of the appellant on 17 December 2012 was liable to be subjected to a levy of Rs.8,89,000/- as deficit stamp duty together with penalty of four times the deficit stamp duty amounting to Rs.35,56,000/-. Thus a total amount of Rs.44,45,000/- was sought to be recovered from the appellant. Apart from the above, the deficit amount of stamp duty was also subjected to a levy of interest at the rate of 1.5 % per month on simple interest basis from the date of execution of the instrument till the date of actual recovery of the sums aforementioned. Since the order of 10 November 2014 was stated to have been made ex parte, the appellant sought recall of the same by moving an application before the second respondent. This application came to be rejected on 03 August 2015 and the original order of 10 November 2014 was maintained. It was aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders that the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court.
(3.) Before we proceed further, we would like to highlight here that the order of the second respondent refers to the instrument in question as a sale deed. However, a copy of the instrument, which has been produced before us and which fact was also borne out from the representation submitted by the appellant before the second respondent shows that it is in fact a gift deed dated 17 December 2012 executed by the husband of the appellant in her favour in respect of a plot described as Khasra No. 786 area 0.7160 hectare situate in village Surajpur, Pargana Dadri. The Collector proceeded to pass the impugned orders holding that the instrument had come to be taxed at rates applicable to agricultural land whereas in his opinion it was liable to be taxed treating the property comprised in the instrument as residential. He accordingly proceeded to apply the circle rate applicable to residential plots and held the Appellant liable to pay the amounts aforementioned.;