Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2021) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16348 = 2021(2) L.A.R. 524
Decided on: 08.07.2021
Present:
Mr. Karan Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anju Arora, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
(In virtual Court)
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 47-A – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Stamp Duty and penalty imposed – Challenged in writ -- Delay and laches -- Opportunity of hearing – Joint sale deed -- One of the co-sharers has duly been served and has represented the matter before the concerned authority -- Even qua the present petitioner, as per the record, the notice was sent to him and it has been received by an adult member of the family -- Mere alleged non-receipt of a notice by the petitioner, cannot be any ground to set aside the order – Otherwise also, the petitioner not substantiated as to how the deficiency in the stamp duty paid by the petitioner has been wrongly assessed -- Order was passed in the year 2016, petition has been filed only in the year 2021 -- Petition suffers from delay and laches, as well -- No ground for interference, the present petition is dismissed.
(Para 2)
***
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (ORAL) –
1. This is a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of order dated 24.05.2016 (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No.2, vide which, recovery of Rs.93,328/- (Rs.86,375/- towards stamp duty and Rs.6,953/- towards registration charges) along with interest and penal interest (penalty) has been ordered under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and for quashing of all consequential proceedings arising out of dated 24.05.2016.
2. The solitary argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing before assessing the deficiency in the stamp duty by the Collector. However, the sale deed in question is jointly in the name of more than one persons. The order itself shows that one of the co-sharers has duly been served and has represented the matter before the concerned authority. Even qua the present petitioner, as per the record, the notice was sent to him and it has been received by an adult member of the family. Otherwise also, mere alleged non-receipt of a notice by the petitioner, cannot be any ground to set aside the order because one of the co-sharers, having common interest with the petitioner, has already participated in the proceedings of assessment of the deficiency in the stamp duty.
3. Otherwise also, the petitioner has not been able to substantiate as to how the deficiency in the stamp duty paid by the petitioner has been wrongly assessed. Moreover, the impugned order was passed in the year 2016. The present petition has been filed only in the year 2021. Hence, the present petition suffers from delay and laches, as well.
4. In view of the above findings, no ground for interference, the present petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
********