AUTOMAT IRREGATION PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A lease deed in relation to plot no.95 Sector No.6A, having an area of 14350 square meters in an industrial area IIE, District Haridwar, was leased out to the petitioner by respondent no.2. Since the said lease deed dated 28.11.2013, would fall to be a deed, falling within the ambit of Section 17 of the Registration Act, it was mandatorily required to be registered and as a consequence thereto, the said deed was registered. But later on, on a report, which was submitted, being Report No.10306 of 2014, it was found and as was assessed by the authorities, that the stamp duty which was paid by the petitioner on the said lease deed dated 28.11.2013, according to the petitioner it has not suffered from deficiency in the remittance of the stamp duty, which was paid on it to the tune of Rs.6,96,450/- and consequently according to the report, the Additional Collector (Finance/Revenue) Haridwar, had issued Notice No.922/Stamp dated 18.07.2017, showing it to be a notice under Section 47-A, to be read with Section dated 33/40 Kha of Stamp Act, to be read with Rule 350 of the Rules framed under the Act. By virtue of the said notice, which was issued on 10.07.2017, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Assistant Collector, on the date prescribed in the said notice in order to extend his defence, with regards to the action proposed to be taken as a consequence of the notice which was issued on 18.07.2017 and consequently, the notice reads as under:-

(2.) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the issuance of the notices, thereby calling upon the petitioner to appear on the specified date, would suffer from certain defects, for the reason being that the heads under which the determination of deficiency of stamp was to be made was not specific therein as notice used the words and hence, in the absence of there being the specific heads prescribed in the notice, the notice dated 18.07.2017 itself as against which the determination of the deficiency of stamp was to be determined by the Additional Collector, would itself render him to be incapacitated to have an appropriate and adequate defence before the court of Additional Collector in the proceedings which were likely to be drawn against him under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. In response to the notice, which was issued on 10.07.2017; the petitioner did put in appearance before the court below and had placed the documents on record in support of his case, before the court, but however later on for reasons unknown they had not participated in the proceedings and a finding to that effect has been recorded by the court of Additional Collector, in Case No.233/MB/2017-2018, State vs. M/s Automat Irrigation Pvt. Limited, and as per the finding recorded therein in the judgment dated 06.02.2020 the Court has observed that the petitioner, did appear before the court, based on the record, but later on had not participated in the proceedings and as a consequence thereto, the court had no option except to proceeded to pass an order on merits on 06.02.2020 determining the deficiency payable on the deed to the tune of Rs.6,96,450/-. Besides this the said amount, which was levied in its totality which was payable towards the interest and the penalty was assessed as to a total amount of Rs.21,76,425/-.

(3.) The petitioner contended, thereof that the said decision, which was rendered by Assistant Collector on 06.02.2020, since being ex-parte and the petitioner was not provided with an adequate opportunity, to raise his defence, before an actual determination was being made; because of the defects, which was allegedly being suffered by the notice, which was issued to them by the respondents they had filed an application for recall of the judgment dated 06.02.2020, seeking recall of the order dated 06.02.2020, and in the recall application thus, filed by the petitioner he himself has admitted the fact that after the issuance of notice and its receipts, they had put in appearance before the court of Assistant Collector; but the discrepancy, which has been pointed out by the petitioner was that and by way of reiteration of fact, that it is once again observed, that his argument was that in the absence of there being the details being provided, in the notice under which the deficiency was expected to be determined and levied by the respondents, it would be treated that he was not provided with an adequate opportunity, to have his say after putting in appearance and explaining the deficiency as projected in the report submitted; being Report No.10306/2014.