B. Amit Sthalekar, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition filed by the State seeking quashing of the order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'CCRA') in Stamp Appeal no. 148/2007-08 (Parsvanath Developers Vs. State of U.P.).
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-M/s Parsvanth Developers Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Parsvanth Developers/Second Party") got a builders agreement deed executed on 28.10.2004 in respect of land situated in Village Pasaunda on the G.T. Road, Ghaziabad measuring 34735.76 sq. mtr. which contained a stipulation that the second party, namely, Parsvanth Developers agreed to construct and sell residential flats and complete all formalities in that respect. The first party in the agreement was M/s Devidayal Aluminum Industries (P) Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Owner/First Party") who is also a respondent in the present writ petition. The agreement contained a stipulation defining the share of each of the parties as 30% and 70% of the sale proceeds which means that the first party i.e. the owner's share would be 30% of the total sale proceeds and that of the second party, namely, the Parsvanth Developers share would be 70%.
(3.) When the deed was presented for registration it was impounded by the Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, Ghaziabad on the ground that there was deficiency of stamp duty. The Assistant Commissioner, Stamp referred the matter to Collector on 2.8.2007, who, thereafter, initiated proceedings under Section 33/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Notice was issued to Parsvanth Developers who also submitted his reply and after hearing the parties, the Collector, Ghaziabad by his order dated 31.10.2007 computed the deficiency of stamp duty at Rs. 2,93,51,700/- with penalty of Rs. 29,53,300/- along with interest @ 1.5% per month. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2007, the respondent-Parsvanth Developers preferred stamp appeal before the CCRA who by the impugned order dated 29.11.2007 held that the provisions of Article 5 (b-2) of the Schedule I-B of the Act would have no application in the present case and no stamp duty would be payable. Hence, the present writ petition.;