GAJENDRA SINGH Vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER (J)
LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-6
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
March 12,2018
GAJENDRA SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
ADDL. COMMISSIONER (J)
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
A V FERNANDEZ VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]JAGANNATH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER:ASST SUPDT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES BIHAR:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
BANARSI DEBI LUXMI NIWAS MOODY VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER DISTRICT IV CALCUTTA:INCOME TAX OFFICER DISTRICT IV CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX MADRAS O V R SV SR ARUNACHALAM CRETTAR VS. V MR P FIRM MUAR O R M O M A M CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS O RM SP SV FIRM [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA VS. SHAHZADA NAND AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
INCOME TAX OFFICER TUTICORIN VS. T S DEVINATHA NADAR [REFERRED TO]
S KODAR INDIAN MOTORS PARTS AND ACCESSORIES LIMITED SUNDRAM INDUSTRIES P LIMITED UPPER INDIA TRADING P LIMITED THE CENTURY RAYON SALES DEPOT SALEM THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO LIMITED TAMIL NADU THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CO OF INDIA VS. STATE OF KERALA:STATE OF TAMIL NADUS:STATE OF TAMIL NADU:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT MADRAS:STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUCKNOW VS. MADHO PD JATIA [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA KUMAR VERMA VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED JUMNA FLOUR AND OIL MILLS PHARMA ASSOCIATES VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV NAGAR SAHKARI AWAS SAMITILTD VS. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY/COMMISSIONER AGRA [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
B. Amit Sthalekar, J. -
(1.)Heard Shri Vivek Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
(2.)The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the orders dated 30.7.2008 and 19.3.2008 arising out of proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that he took a loan amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- from the Allahabad Bank Branch, Madhogarh, District Jalaun for setting up Mentha Oil Plant and for the purposes of the loan he mortgaged 3.112 hectare of his agricultural land. The loan was taken under the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1973). A hypothecation agreement was also executed on 28.11.2007 between the petitioner and the Bank as security for the repayment of the loan advance. It is stated that the agreement was executed on payment of stamp duty of Rs.100/-. On an allegation that there was deficiency of stamp duty a report was sent by the Dy. Registrar, Madhogarh to the Inspector General of Registration Orai dated 19.12007 mentioning therein that a sum of Rs.18,000/- was payable towards stamp duty on the agreement dated 28.11.2007 under Article 40(B) of Scheduled I-B of the Act, 1899. Notice was issued to the petitioner to which he also submitted his reply stating therein that the loan was taken for agricultural purposes under the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act and, therefore, it was not chargeable to stamp duty beyond Rs.100/-.
(3.)The Collector, Stamp however by his order dated 19.2008 has rejected the claim of the petitioner that he was an agriculturist and that the loan taken for establishing a Mentha Oil Plant was an agricultural activity and the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs.18,000/- was determined with penalty of like amount. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed stamp appeal which was also rejected by the Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Jhansi Division by his order dated 30.7.2008.
(2.)The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the orders dated 30.7.2008 and 19.3.2008 arising out of proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that he took a loan amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- from the Allahabad Bank Branch, Madhogarh, District Jalaun for setting up Mentha Oil Plant and for the purposes of the loan he mortgaged 3.112 hectare of his agricultural land. The loan was taken under the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1973). A hypothecation agreement was also executed on 28.11.2007 between the petitioner and the Bank as security for the repayment of the loan advance. It is stated that the agreement was executed on payment of stamp duty of Rs.100/-. On an allegation that there was deficiency of stamp duty a report was sent by the Dy. Registrar, Madhogarh to the Inspector General of Registration Orai dated 19.12007 mentioning therein that a sum of Rs.18,000/- was payable towards stamp duty on the agreement dated 28.11.2007 under Article 40(B) of Scheduled I-B of the Act, 1899. Notice was issued to the petitioner to which he also submitted his reply stating therein that the loan was taken for agricultural purposes under the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act and, therefore, it was not chargeable to stamp duty beyond Rs.100/-.
(3.)The Collector, Stamp however by his order dated 19.2008 has rejected the claim of the petitioner that he was an agriculturist and that the loan taken for establishing a Mentha Oil Plant was an agricultural activity and the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs.18,000/- was determined with penalty of like amount. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed stamp appeal which was also rejected by the Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) Jhansi Division by his order dated 30.7.2008.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.