AVNISH KUMAR GARG Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 05.01.2011 and? dated 01.02.2013 passed by Assistant Commissioner (Stamps), Ghaziabad as well as the order passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in Appeal No. 61 of 2012-13.

(2.) Under the order dated 15.01.2011 the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps), Ghaziabad has held that there was a deficiency of stamp duty on the lease deed executed by U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Ghaziabad in favour of the petitioner dated 24.10.2008. The petitioner was also saddled with penalty of Rs. 8,91,420/- along with interest @ 1.5%. It has been held that the deed in question was not the first lease of the property by UPSIDC.? Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption as claimed. This order of the Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) was sought to be recalled by the petitioner by making an application on 19.10.2012 i.e. after more than 1 year and 10 months, on the plea that the proceedings under Section 47-A had been decided ex-parte. The Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) has rejected the recall application vide order dated 01.02.2013. It has been recorded that despite sufficient notice the petitioner did not submit any objection in the proceedings under section 47-A. The order was a well reasoned order and no case for recall was made out.

(3.) Against the order dated 15.01.2011 of the Assistant Commissioner the petitioner filed an appeal being Appeal No. 61 of 2012-13 before the Commissioner, Meerut Mandal, Meerut under Section 56 of the Indian Stamps Act. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected after recording that the proceedings under Section 47-A were decided vide order dated 15.01.2011. The recall application was made after 1 year and 10 months. After the recall application was? dismissed the present appeal was filed against the order dated 15.01.2011 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. It has been held that the appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation and explanation provided was unsatisfactory.