STATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus AMBRISH TANDON & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 422 · Decided: 20-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 422 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
v. 
AMBRISH TANDON & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 735 of 2012) 
JANUARY 20, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Stamp Act, 1899 - s. 47A/33 - Deficiency in stamp duty 
- Execution of sale deed in favour of purchaser - Surprise 
C inspection by District Magistrate - Deficiency found in 
payment of stamp duty- Case registered u/s. 47 A/33 - Order 
passed by the Additional Collector demanding differential 
stamp duty with interest and penalty - Non-payment of the 
amount - Issuance of demand notice claiming the said 
D amount plus 10% recovery charges - Writ petition - High 
Court issuing writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order 
passed by the Additional Collector and the demand notice -
Interference with - Held: Not called for - Though the Collector 
made a surprise site inspection, no record to show that all the 
E details such as measurement, extent, boundaries were noted 
in the presence of the purchasers - At the time of execution 
of the sale deed, the property was used for residential purpose 
and the stamp duty was paid based on the position and user 
of the building on the date of the purchase - Mere use of the 
F property for commercial purpose at a later point of time may 
not be a relevant criterion for assessing the value for the 
purpose of stamp duty - Nature of user relatable to the date 
of purchase and relevant for the purpose of calculation of 
stamp duty - A/so, it was the grievance of the purchasers that 
they were not given adequate opportunity by the Addi. 
G Collector and order was passed on a public holiday- Though 
the matter could have been considered by the Appellate 
Authority, since there was no serious objection by the State 
relating to alternative remedy before the High Court, such 
objection is not interfered at this juncture. 
H 
422 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. AMBRISH TANDON & 
423 
ANR. 
Respondent purchased a property and on execution 
A 
of sale deed paid stamp duty. The District Magistrate on 
spot inspection found that there was deficiency in the 
payment of stamp duty. The Additional Collector passed 
an order demanding differential stamp duty with interest 
and penalty but the respondents failed to pay the same. 
B 
Thereafter, the Additional Collector issued a demand 
notice under Section 47A/33 of the Stamp Act, to the 
respondents claiming the amount due with recovery 
charges. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a writ petition. 
The Division Bench of the High Court issued a writ in the c 
nature of certiorari quashin!J the order passed by the 
Additional Collector (Finance & Revenue) and the 
demand notice. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant 
appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A perusal of the proceedings before the 
High Court show that the State was not serious in raising 
this objection relating to alternative remedy and allowed 
D 
the High Court to pass orders on merits, thus, such 
E 
objection is not entertained at tt.is juncture though it is 
relevant. In fact, on receipt of the notice from the High 
Court in 2005, the appellants who are respondents before 
the High Court could have objected the writ petition filed 
under Article 226 and sought for dismissal of the same 
F 
for not availing alternative remedy but the fact remains 
that unfortunately the State or its officers have not 
resorted to such recourse. [Para 7] [428-F-H] 
1.2. It is the grievance of the respondents-purchasers 
that they were not given adequate opportunity by the G 
Addi. Collector and order was passed on a public holiday. 
Before the High Court as well as in this Court, the 
respondents placed the order sheet which contains the 
various dates and the date on which the ultimate decision 
was taken by him. It shows that the matter was heard and 
H 
\ 
424 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 
A decided on a public holiday. In all fairness, the High Court 
instead of keeping the writ petition pending and deciding 
itself after two years could have remitted the matter to the 
Addi. Collector for fresh orders. However, it had gone into 
the details as to the area of the plot, nature of the building 
B i.e. whether it is residential or non-residential and based 
on the revenue records and after finding that at the time 
of execution of the sale deed, the house was used for 
residential purpose upheld the stand taken by the 
respondents and set aside the order dated 27.09.2004 
c passed by the Addi. Collecto

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.