GAURAV SINGH RAGHAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Member Judicial, Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad dated 20.7.2013 whereunder the revision filed by the petitioner under Section 56(1) of the (Indian) Stamps Act has been returned on the ground that it cannot be entertained by the Board of Revenue in view of the Government Notification dated 8.12.2008 as the value of the disputed amount of stamp duty was less than Rs. 10 lacs. This order is being challenged on the ground that the total disputed amount in the revision was the deficiency of stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 8,62,200/- and penalty of Rs. 8,62,200/-. Thus, the total disputed amount was Rs. 17,34,400/- plus interest thereon which was much in access of Rs. 10 lacs. In terms of notification dated 8.12.2008. Therefore, the revision as filed by the petitioner was maintainable before the Board of Revenue. In support of his contention, the petitioner has referred to the Government order dated 4.5.2003 copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure 10 to the present writ petition. It is his case that since total disputed amount exceeding Rs. 10 lacs, his revision was maintainable before the Board of Revenue it was returned because of misreading of the notification dated 8.12.2008. Standing Counsel in reply disputes the correctness of contentions so raised. He submits that the State Government in exercise of power under Section 76(A) of the (Indian) Stamps Act has delegated the revisional powers under Section 56(1) upon various authorities having regard to the value of the disputed stamp duty. For the disputed amount of stamp duty is between 2.5 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs the usual turnover has been made the Revisional Authority. He explain that the amount of penalty and interest has not included for determining the disputed amount of stamp duty.

(2.) He therefore, submits, that since in the facts of the case disputed amount of stamp duty was less, than Rs. 10 lacs the Board of Revenue has rightly held that the revision as filed was not maintainable before the Board of Revenue.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.