ARVIND BABULAL ADAIJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all the above petitions a common question of law and facts are invoked and they are disposed of by the present common judgement

(2.) The petitioners herein, in pursuance of purchase of properties, lodged necessary documents for registration in the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar, On perusal of documents, the Collector of Stamps, alleged that the-valuation was not proper and therefore passed orders demanding payment towards alleged deficit stamp duty Feeling aggrieved by such orders the petitioners have filed appeal along with delay condonation applications. The competent authority refused to condone the delay and rejected the applications as a result of which the appeals were not entertained. Under these circumstances the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the aforesaid petitions

(3.) Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the respondent authority committed an error in holding that there is no provision for condonation of delay after 90 days and thereby not entertaining the petitioners' application. It is farther submitted that there is an implied meaning under the proviso to section 32B of the Act that the authority can exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners. It was further submitted that the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds for condonation of delay and the authority, after condoning the delay, ought to have decided the appeal on merits in the interest of justice. A contention was raised that the period of limitation is calculated from the date of issuance of notice/order and in most of the cases though the notice mentions a particular date, the same is dispatched after long lapse of time and such delay is also attributed to the petitioners Therefore, the delay should have been counted only from the date of knowledge about the impugned order and not from the date of (tie alleged notice/order.