AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.P. Mehrotra, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 4-10-2002 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) and the order dated 24-1-2003 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) in so far as it has imposed the condition for deposit of 1/3rd of the total amount of the deficient stamp duty.
From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that proceedings u/s 47A(4)/33 of the Indian Stamps Act were taken against the petitioner in respect of sale deed dated 27-6-1995 executed in favour of the petitioner.
By the order dated 4-10-2002 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by the Assistant Commissioner Stamps, Sitapur, it was found that the land in question had been under valued, and in consequence, Rs. 1,71,875-50 paisa was determined as the deficient stamp duty.
Thereupon, it appears that the petitioner filed an appeal u/s 56 of the Indian Stamps Act. By the order dated 24-1-2003 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition), the said appeal was admitted, and the operation of the order dated 4-10-2002 was stayed subject to the deposit of 1/3 of the total amount of the deficient stamp duty as determined in the said order dated 4-10-2002. The said appeal was registered as Appeal No. 204 of 2002-03.
Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 4-10-2002 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Stamps, Sitapur is Illegal. He further submits that the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow acted illegally in imposing the condition for depositing 1/3rd amount of the deficient stamp duty while granting stay order dated 24-1-2003. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said condition regarding deposit is onerous.
Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find myself, to enable to accept the same.
So far as the order dated 4-10-2002 is concerned, the same has been challenged by the petitioner in the said appeal No. 204 of 2002-03 u/s 56 of the Indian Stamps Act. As the petitioner already availing of alternative remedy against the said order dated 4-10-2002, no interference is called for by this Court in writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India with the said order dated 4-10-2002.
Let us now come to the order dated 24-1-2003 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Appeal No. 204 of 2002-03. By the said order, as noted above, the Commissioner has admitted the said appeal filed by the petitioner and has granted the stay order in favour of the petitioner subject to the condition of deposit of 1/3rd amount of the deficient stamp duty as determined in the order dated 4-10-2002.
In my opinion, the said order dated 24-1-2003 is reasonable order, and the condition regarding deposit of the amount imposed in the said order while granting the stay order to the petitioner cannot be said to be onerous.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the writ petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the period of 15 days as mentioned in the order dated 24-1-2003 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) has already expired, and, therefore, some further reasonable time be granted to the petitioner for complying with the condition imposed in the said order dated 24-1-2003.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the time for making deposit as per the said order dated 24-1-2003 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) is extended by a further period of three weeks from today.