B.AMIT STHALEKAR,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in pursuance of the recovery proceedings against the respondent no.4. The brief facts of the case as emerging from the writ petition are that the respondent no.4- Smt. Ritu Chauhan acquired a commercial Plot No.162, Block-B, Sector 16, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar on lease from New Okhala Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) through a registered sale deed dated 05.12.2000. The deed was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar-III, NOIDA as deed no.3462 of 2000. The respondent no.4-Smt. Ritu Chauhan took possession of the said plot of which the petitioner purchased the lease hold rights having an area of 19.80 sq. meter through a registered transfer deed dated 03.05.2001 for a sale consideration of Rs.7,92,000/- executed by Smt. Ritu Chauhan. The transfer deed was registered with the Sub-Registrar-I, NOIDA on 03.05.2001.
(2.) The specific case of the petitioner is that the plot taken by the respondent no.4-Smt. Ritu Chauhan from NOIDA Authorities was a vacant plot and he also acquired the same plot from the respondent no.4 in a vacant condition and at that time there was no construction on the said plot. The case of the petitioner further is that after he purchased the lease hold rights of the plot from the respondent no.4-Smt. Ritu Chauhan he constructed a liquor shop thereon. It is stated that proceedings under Section 47-A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1899) were initiated against the respondent no.4-Smt. Ritu Chauhan in respect of the said transfer arising out of an audit objection raised by the Accountant General, U.P. The report of the Tehsildar, Dadri stated that the rent of the shop was Rs.2,500/- per month and therefore, the property should be valued according to the rent and premium of the lease. He accordingly valued the property at Rs.14,84,580/- and determined the stamp duty at Rs.1,48,500/- whereas Rs.73,520/- had already been paid as stamp duty. The petitioner's contention with regard to the order of the S.D.M., Dadri dated 21.01.2003 is that the same is enforceable only against the respondent no.4 and even otherwise the proceedings have been initiated against the respondent no.4 and therefore no coercive measures be taken against the petitioner's shop. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. An objection has also been raised by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the petitioner has approached the Court straightaway without exhausting his remedy of appeal under Section 56 of the Act, 1899 and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and all the objections that have been raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition can be raised by him in his appeal before the Commissioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find that proceedings in the present case have been initiated against the respondent no.4-Smt. Ritu Chauhan and not against the petitioner. No doubt Section 56 of the Act, 1899 provides a remedy to the petitioner by way of appeal as well as revision but considering the facts of the present case that the proceedings herein have been initiated against the respondent no.4-Smt. Ritu Chauhan and not against the petitioner and also considering the fact that the writ petition is of the year 2007 it would not be appropriate at this distance of time to relegate the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. We are therefore, proceeding to decide the matter on its merit and therefore, we reject the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the respondents.
(3.) We have perused the impugned order dated 21.01.2003. The order records that notices were issued to the respondent no.4-Smt. Ritu Chauhan but she never responded nor participated in the proceedings. Stamp duty is chargeable on an instrument. The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is a taxing statute and therefore, in view of the law relating to a taxing statute each word used therein must be interpreted strictly. The word 'chargeable' has been defined in Section-2 sub-section (6) of the Act, 1899 and mentions that when applied to an instrument executed or first executed after the commencement of the Act means chargeable under the Act and where such instrument is executed or where several persons executed the instrument at different times means first executed; Section-2 sub-section 6 of the Act, 1899 reads as under:- "2 (6) "Chargeable" means, as applied to an instrument executed or first executed after the commencement of this Act, chargeable under this Act, and, as applied to any other instrument, chargeable under the law in force in [India] when such instrument was executed or, where several persons executed the instrument at different times, first executed;" Thus, what emerges from the definition of the word chargeable is that where several persons have executed the instrument at different times, stamp duty becomes chargeable to the instrument when it was first executed. Section 29 of the Act, 1899 describes the person who is liable to pay stamp duty and sub-section (f) states that in the case of a certificate of sale stamp duty is payable by the purchaser of the property to which such certificate relates. Section 29 (f) of the Act, 1899 reads as under: "29. Duties by whom payable.- (c) in the case of a conveyance (including a reconveyance of mortgaged property) by the grantee; in the case of a lease or agreement to lease-by the lessee or intended lessee; (f) in the case of a certificate of sale-by the purchaser of the property to which such certificate relates; Section 48 of the Act, 1899 provides for recovery of duties and penalties and mentions that all duties, penalties and other sums required to be paid under this Chapter may be recovered by the Collector by distress and sale of the immovable property of the person from whom the same are due, or by any other process for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue. Section 48 of the Act, 1899 reads as under: "48. Recovery of duties and penalties.- All duties, penalties and other sums required to be paid under this Chapter may be recovered by the Collector by distress and sale of the immovable property of the person from whom the same are due, or by any other process for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue." ;