- (1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and order rendered by the learned Single Judge on 21 December 2015, dismissing a writ petition and relegating him to the alternative remedy, the original petitioner is in appeal before us.
(2.) The writ petition challenged an order dated 26 October 2015 passed by the second respondent in purported exercise of powers conferred under Sections 47-A and 33 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899(The Act). The order impugned held the petitioner-appellant liable to pay additional stamp duty of Rs.7,14,650/- and penalty of Rs.1,78,663/-, thus totaling Rs.8,93,313/-. The order imposing additional stamp duty is on an instrument executed in favor of the appellant on 26 September 2011, being a sale deed in respect of Khasra No. 786 admeasuring 0.7160 hectares. This instrument, upon presentation in the office of the Sub Registrar, Gautam Budh Nagar and on payment of stamp duty of Rs. 1,07,600/- had been duly registered and returned to the appellant. From the material brought on record of the writ petition, it appears that a copy of the instrument in question fell for scrutiny before the Sub Registrar, Gautambudh Nagar who on 7 December 2012 put up a note for consideration of the second respondent asserting therein that the instrument was in respect of a property, which had been valued at agricultural rates. In the opinion of the Sub Registrar, the property comprised in the instrument was liable to be taxed @ Rs. 6,500/- per square meter being the circle rate prescribed by the second respondent for residential properties. Consequently, the Sub Registrar opined that the instrument should be subjected to additional stamp of Rs.7,14,650/-. Taking note of the aforesaid report, the second respondent assumed jurisdiction and issued a notice dated 30 August 2012 informing the appellant that proceedings in respect of the adequacy of stamp duty paid on the instrument in question were pending before him and that prima facie it appears that the appellant has evaded stamp duty to the extent of Rs.7,14,650/-. This notice accordingly called upon the appellant to participate and show cause why additional stamp duty together with penalty be not imposed upon him. The appellant filed his response in the proceedings on 28 December 2012. During the pendency of the proceedings, he is stated to have gifted the property comprised in the instrument to his wife Smt. Vijaya Jain on 17 December 2012.
(3.) During the course of the proceedings before the second respondent, an order came to be passed on 23 October 2013 calling upon the Sub Registrar to conduct a fresh site inspection of the property and submit an actual status report. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Sub Registrar is stated to have submitted a report dated 16 November 2013 recording therein that the property in question appeared to have been put to use as farm land. The second respondent upon a consideration of the material before him has proceeded to hold that the land in question falls in the vicinity of the Greater NOIDA industrial development area where land is largely being used for residential and commercial purposes. He proceeded to hold that bearing in mind the area of the property, it was not possible to be utilized for agricultural purposes and that the appellant himself owned no premises in the vicinity of the land in question, which may lend credence to the contention that the property was to be utilized for agricultural purposes only. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts, the second respondent accepted the initial report submitted by the Sub Registrar on 7 December 2012 and proceeded to pass the order which was impugned in the writ petition. To complete the narration of facts it becomes apposite to note that during the pendency of proceedings before the second respondent, the appellant on 17 December 2012 gifted the property to his wife Smt. Vijaya Jain. This gift deed too was subjected to proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act by the second respondent. Smt. Vijaya Jain was also foisted with a demand of additional stamp duty. The order passed by the second respondent against Smt. Vijaya Jain, was subjected to challenge in a writ petition which too came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that she had an equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 56. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on that occasion fell for consideration before a Division Bench of the Court in a special appeal(Special Defective No. 598 of 2015 Vijaya Jain Vs. State of U.P. & 2 others decided on 1.9.2015) which ultimately came to be allowed by judgment and order dated 1 September 2015. The judgment of the Division Bench, we may note formed part of the record of the writ proceedings from which the present Special Appeal emanates.;