Hon’ble Allahabad High Court on 4th January 2013 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57850 of 2009 titled as Gaurav Aseem Avtej Versus The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. Allahabad and others has held that both the provisions of revision and appeal are available to an aggrieved person while holding that Sub-section (1-A) of section 56 of the Act as inserted by the U.P. Act No. 38 of 2001 is constitutionally valid. It further held that If a revision is preferred under sub-section (1) of section 56 of the Act then there is no requirement of deposit of 1/3rd of the disputed amount of deficient stamp duty including interest or penalty, if any while filing an application for grant of interim relief.
it is open for an aggrieved person to either invoke the jurisdiction of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under sub-section (1) of section 56 of the Act i.e. by way of filing a revision or under sub-section (1-A) of section 56 of the Act by filing an appeal.
ALLAHADAD HIGH COURT
Mohd. Aslam And Another Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And 2 Others
Order Date :- 23.6.2014
Coram:Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The submission of Sri S.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Additional Collector, Sambhal in determining the deficiency in stamp duty has added the cost of construction of the building which was raised subsequently. Secondly, in revision preferred under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, there is no requirement of deposit of 1/3rd of the deficient amount as condition precedent for consideration of the stay application. He has placed reliance a full Bench decision 2013 (119) RD 695 Gaurav Aseem Avtej Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U.P. and others.
In view of the Full Bench in revision there is no requirement of depositing of 1/3rd of deficient amount.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the C.C.R.A. respondent No.1 to consider and decide the interim stay application of the petitioners in the Revision No.60 of 2013-14 (Aslam and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order without insisting for the deposit of 1/3rd of the deficient amount.
It will be open to the Board of Revenue to consider and decide the revision as a whole also within the above period or as early as possible and till the consideration of the stay application by the revision of the authority or for a period of two months whichever is earlier, no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents for realizing the deficient amount inasmuch as petitioners have already deposited a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.6.2014
No comments:
Post a Comment