Heard, Shri Mohd.Mansoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Uttam Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties.
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.01.2020, passed in Case No.399/2005-2006, by the Assistant Commissioner, Stamp, Ayodhya by means of which the deficiency of stamp duty of Rs.,4,66,200/- alongwith penalty of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed with the interest at the rate of 1.5% per month from 18.07.2005 and the order dated 24.12.2020, passed in Appeal No.00702/2020 by the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya by means of which the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing no.4706 (MB) of 2005 before this court challenging the order dated 06.06.2005 by means of which the petitioner was directed to deposit the stamp duty at the rate of 10% as the petitioner had deposited the stamp paper of only Rs.50,000/-. The writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner approached to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition No.14697 of 2007. The S.L.P. filed by the petitioner was dismissed by means of order dated 28th of March, 2014. Therefore the matter was pending before the court. In the meantime by means of order dated 10th of July, 2008 a clarification was issued from the office of the Assistant Commissioner Stamp, Faizabad that the stamp duty on the agreement in question was to be paid at the rate of 2%, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law and the stamp duty can be charged at the rate of 2% only. Therefore the petitioner is constrained to approach this court.
On the other hand learned Standing Counsel on the basis instructions submitted that the agreement with the petitioner was executed in the year 2005 and the Notification dated 10th of July, 2008 was issued subsequent to the agreement between the parties, therefore, the same is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. The impugned orders have rightly been passed and merely because the SLP was pending the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit of the same because the writ petition filed by the petitioner was already dismissed on 2nd of May, 2007.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it transpires that the auction of Theka for the year 2005-2006 for collection of stand fee from tempos, taxis and private buses within the limit of Nagar Palika Parishad, Faizabad was settled in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.51,61,334/- and in connection with the aforesaid Theka the petitioner was required to execute agreement on stamp papers at the rate of 10% of the amount of Theka, but the petitioner furnished stamp duty of only Rs.50,000/-, therefore by means of order dated 06.06.2005 the Nagar Palika Parishad had called upon the petitioner to deposit stamp duty at the rate of 10% of the aforesaid amount. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this court in writ petition No.4706 (MB) of 2005. The writ petition was dismissed in limine by means of order dated 2nd of May, 2007 holding that the agreement entered into between the parties has the complexion of a lease and therefore, the stamp duty is payable under Article 35(II) of Schedule 1-B of the Stamp Act. Accordingly the petitioner was liable to pay the stamp duty at the rate of 10%, but the petitioner did not deposit the same and filed the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed by means of order dated 28.03.2014. Admittedly there was no interim order in the SLP.
After dismissal of the SLP the notice was issued to the petitioner and after affording opportunity to the petitioner the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 was passed by means of which it has been held that the said stamp duty of Rs.5,16,200/- is payable, out of which the petitioner has deposited Rs.50,000/-, therefore the remaining amount of Rs.4,66,200/- alongwith interest of 1.5.% per month has been imposed in accordance with law. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. The petitioner is claiming the benefit of order dated 10th of July, 2008, whereas the stamp duty was payable by the petitioner in the year 2005-2006 for which Theka was awarded to the petitioner in pursuance of the auction. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit of the order dated 10th of July, 2008, which has been issued subsequent to that, merely because the SLP filed by the petitioner was pending, whereas there was no order in favour of the petitioner. Therefore this court is of the view that there is no illegality or error in the impugned orders.
In view of above the writ petition is misconceived and lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
.
.........................................(Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Banswar