Jodhpal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order of Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Aligarh Division, Aligarh dated 29.4.2010 in appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Mahamaya Nagar dated 18.12.2009, by which he has raised the demand towards the deficient stamp duty at Rs. 1,81,250 and also imposed penalty of the same amount at Rs. 1,81,250.

It appears that for the Sevaj Farm, the Petitioner has been granted contract for the period prior to 1.6.1993 on the basis of the auction held by Nagar Palika, Hathras (Now Mahamaya Nagar). For the subsequent period, the auction was held on 10.5.1993. The Petitioner participated in the auction. Alongwith the Petitioner, two other persons, namely, Hira Lal and Banshi Dhar were also participated. The highest bid offered by the Petitioner was Rs. 14,50,000. Since the offer of the Petitioner was the highest, the same has been accepted and the Petitioner has been directed to deposit one fourth of the amount on the bid sheet on 10.5.1993 itself. In pursuance thereof, the Petitioner accepted the contract. However, despite the request being made, the Petitioner has not executed the contract in writing. On the basis of the letter issued by Adhyaksh, Nagar Palika, Hathras, dated 26.3.1996, a stamp case has been registered against the Petitioner. The Petitioner has been given notice. The Petitioner filed reply stating therein that since no lease deed or any other documents has been executed relating to the contract, therefore, the Petitioner is not liable for the stamp duty. The contention of the Petitioner has not been accepted by Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) and vide order dated 18.12.2009, he has raised the demand towards deficient stamp duty at Rs. 1,81,250 and also imposed penalty of the same amount.

Aggrieved by the order, the Petitioner filed appeal, which has been dismissed by Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Aligarh Division, Aligarh vide order dated 29.4.2010.

Heard Sri Subhashlsh Banerji, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Sanjay Goswami, additional chief standing counsel.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since no agreement has been executed, therefore, no liability could be created. The bid sheet neither created nor purported to create any right or liability, hence on the basis of the bid sheet alone, the stamp duty cannot be charged. The levy of penalty is illegal and highly excessive. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Trilok Chand Vs. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, , and a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Yaqoob Khan and Another Vs. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, .

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that in the present case, in the bid sheet, offer of the Petitioner has been recorded and in the bid sheet itself, the acceptance of the said offer has also been recorded by the authority concerned and the Petitioner has been directed to deposit one fourth of the amount and, therefore, in the bid sheet itself there was acceptance of the offer, which amounts to the complete agreement and, as such was chargeable to the stamp duty under Article 35 (b) of Schedule 1B of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). In support of his contention he relied upon the subsequent Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jagdish Lala and Another Vs. The Collector, Budaun and Others, . He submitted that in this case the earlier Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Yaqoob Khan v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (supra) has also been considered and distinguished. He submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid Full Bench decision.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned orders and the documents annexed alongwith the writ petition and the counter-affidavit.

In the case of Jagdish Lala and Anr. v. Collector, Budaun and Ors. (supra) it has been held that where there is offer and acceptance in the bid sheet itself it constitutes the complete agreement and the stamp duty is chargeable under Article 35 (b) of Schedule 1B of the Act. It has been further, held that in the case of Mohd. Yaqoob Khan v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (supra) the bid sheet did not incorporate the acceptance of the offer made by the highest bidder and, therefore, the Court held that the bid sheet neither created nor purported to create any right or liability.

The copy of the bid sheet is annexed alongwith the counter-affidavit. Perusal of the bid sheet reveals that in the bid sheet itself it is noted that the highest bid offered by the Petitioner is Rs. 14,50,000. In the bid sheet itself there is acceptance of the offer made by the Petitioner and on the same date, the Petitioner has been directed to deposit one fourth amount. Therefore, in the bid sheet itself- there is offer as well as acceptance by Nagar Palika, Hathras. This constitutes the complete agreement between the parties and, therefore, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jagdish Lala and Anr. v. Collector, Budaun and Ors. (supra) the stamp duty is chargeable under Article 35 (b) of Schedule 1B of the Act.

In view of the above, I do not find any error in charging the stamp duty. However, on the facts and circumstances, I find that the levy of penalty to the extent of the amount of stamp duty demanded appears to be highly excessive and is reduced to 25% of the amount of deficient stamp duty.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. The order of the Deputy Commissioner (Stamp), Aligarh Division, Aligarh is modified as stated above.