Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner.
List has been revised. In the order of 25.1.2018 of this court, it was made clear that the case shall be listed peremptorily in the next cause list and will not be adjourned on any ground whatsoever.
No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.2, even though notice in the case was issued on 20.12.2005 but till date no counter affidavit had been filed either.
This writ petition has been filed by the State against the order dated 4.6.2004 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board of Revenue, Allahabad in Stamp Revision no. 135/03-04 (Anil Kumar Agarwal Vs. State) decided in a bunch of cases along with leading Stamp Revision no. 126 of 2003-04 (Nirankar Nath Mittal Vs. State of U.P.).
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2-Anil Kumar Agarwal through ten sale deeds purchased a portion of Chak no. 634 area 4.49 hectares in Village Artauni, Tehsil and District Agra through a registered sale deed dated 10.4.2003 and paid stamp duty on a sale consideration of Rs. 23,42,400/-. On an allegation that there was deficiency of stamp duty proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 were initiated against the respondent no.2. After contest, the ADM (Finance and Revenue), Agra/Collector Stamp by his order dated 24.9.2003 held that the market value of the land in question measuring 38227.87 square meters at Rs. 1200/- per square meters comes to Rs. 4,58,73,444/- and on this the stamp duty payable comes to Rs. 86,38,700/- and since the respondent no.2 had already paid Rs. 40,56,300/-, therefore, deficiency of stamp duty was calculated at Rs. 45,82,400/- with interest @ 1.5% per month. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.9.2003, the respondent no.2 filed ten stamp revisions under Section 56 (1) of the Act, 1899. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by his order dated 4.6.2004 has partly allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Collector, Stamp dated 24.9.2003 and determined the deficiency of stamp duty payable by the revisionist to Rs. 3,36,900/-.
The CCRA in his order has noted that the Sub Registrar-I had made a local spot inspection in respect of different documents no. 1426, 1444, 1445, 1553, 1550 and 1565 of 2003 on 22.4.2003 for which the circle rate applied was Rs. 90,00,000/- per hectare and has noted that if the value of the land as per the circle rate had been more than Rs.90,00,000/- per hectare it would have been expected that the Sub Registrar-I, Agra would not have registered the documents no. 1638 and 1680 of 2003 on 23.4.2003. He has further noted that there is no exemplar to show that the value of the land in the area in question was Rs. 6,00,00,000/- per hectare whereas exemplar of Rs. 400/- per square meters to Rs. 500/- per square meters amounting to Rs. 40,00,000/- to Rs. 50,00,000/- per hectare for developed industrial area of land in Artauni adjoining Agra-Mathura up to a depth of 200 metres from the centre of the road were on record whereas the revisionist had already paid stamp duty on the value of the land at Rs. 90,00,000/- per hectare.
The CCRA has, therefore, held that when there are exemplars on record and the rate per hectare and the circle rate is available and is Rs. 90,00,000/- per hectare for plot no. 634 up to a depth of 200 metres from the centre of Agra-Mathura road should be applied. The CCRA has also noticed that in Khasra no. 1809 Fasli for an area of 1.150 hectares of land, there is abadi, the rate of which would have to be calculated as per the circle rate at Rs. 1,20,00,000/- per hectare as per the rate list dated 15.1.2003 whereas the remaining area measuring 3.348 hectares being agricultural land, its market value would have to be calculated at Rs. 90,00,000/- per hectares at the existing circle rate. The CCRA has, therefore, calculated the deficiency of market value of the property in question as well as the deficiency of stamp duty as under:-
Total land area of the plot : 4.498 hectare
(a) Land Area under Agriculture : 3.348 hectare Cost of land under Agriculture : 3,01,32,000 (3.348 x 90,00,000) Stamp duty payable @10% : Rs.30,13,200
(b) Land Area under Awadi : 1.150 hectare Cost of land under Awadi : Rs. 1,38,00,000 (1,150 x 1,20,00,000) Stamp duty payable @ 10% : Rs. 13,80,000
(c) Total Stamp Duty payable : Rs. 43,93,200 Stamp Duty paid : Rs. 40,56,300 Deficiency of Stamp Duty : Rs. 3,36,900 The Collector, Stamp on the other hand had held that he got the plot in question, namely, plot no. 634 measured from the centre of the Agra-Mathura road up to a depth of 30 metres and has held that for land situated next to the road, the circle rate is Rs. 6,000/- per square meters which comes to Rs. 6,00,00,000/- per hectare for the plot in question and has determined the deficiency of stamp duty, accordingly.
I, however, find the reasoning of CCRA to be appropriate and apt and in accordance with law inasmuch as the CCRA has rightly noted that the Stamp Act being taxing statute where, there is a dispute with regard to the applicability of a particular provision or rate then the one which favours the assessee should be accepted and adopted and this principle would be directly applicable in the the present case. Reference may be made to (1973) 4 SCC 200 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal II, Calcutta Vs M/s Naga Hills Tea Co., Ltd.) wherein the Supreme Court in para 7 has held as under:-
"7. We are in entire agreement with the view expressed therein. At any rate the view taken by the High Court appears to be a reasonable view. If a provision of a Taxing Statute can be reasonably interpreted in two ways, that interpretation which is favourable to the assessee has got to be accepted. This is a well accepted view of law."
Similar view has been taken in the case of Sneh Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, (2006) 7 SCC 714 wherein it has been held that where two interpretations are possible, the courts ordinarily would interpret the provisions in favour of a tax payer and against the revenue. Para 24 of the judgment reads as under:-
"24. While dealing with a taxing provision, the principle of "strict interpretation" should be applied. The court shall not interpret the statutory provision in such a manner which would create an additional fiscal burden on a person. It would never be done by invoking the provisions of another Act, which are not attracted. It is also trite that while two interpretations are possible, the court ordinarily would interpret the provisions in favour of a taxpayer and against the Revenue."
Therefore, on the facts of the case and the law laid down by the various courts, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the CCRA.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 Kirti