RAMESH CHANDRA VERMA Vs. COLLECTOR BARABANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

(2.) Petition has been filed assailing notice dated Ist January, 2010 issued under Ss. 33/40 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899, order dtd. 31/8/2010 passed under Sec. 47-A/33 and order dtd. 30/4/2011 passed in appeal under Sec. 56 of the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was lessee of a shop No.2, the lessor of which was Zila Panchayat, Barabanki on monthly rent of Rs.187.50 per month for a period of three years. It is submitted that lease agreement was executed between the parties on 26/9/2002 and quite belatedly thereafter notice dated Ist January, 2010 was issued to the petitioner under Sec. 47-A read with Sec. 33/40 of the Act requiring petitioner to show cause why proceedings may not initiated against him for evading stamp duty. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that upon receipt of notice, objection thereto was filed by petitioner specifically taking a plea that proceedings were barred by limitation and further that even if stamp duty was applicable, the same could have been determined only on the basis of annual rental value of the property and not the area of property in question. It has been submitted that aforesaid objections are clearly indicated in the order passed under Sec. 47-A and while the second objection has been clearly ignored by the assessing authority, the first issue has also been decided against petitioner on the ground that instrument in question being an instrument as envisaged under Sec. 2(14) of the Act would be chargeable in terms of Sec. 2(6) of the Act since it is a document of lease in terms of Sec. 2(16) of the Act and therefore no time frame has been indicated in the Act for initiating the proceedings.