TRILOK CHAND BANSAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In this bunch of writ petitions, all the petitioners are registered contractors and engaged in the business of contractorship in the various offices of Uttar Pradesh. They have been required to deposit registration fee to work as registered contractors For these contracts the requirement is that they may be registered after depositing registration fee and also to deposit earnest money and security money to the extent of 10% of the total value of the work contracted. In this connection the petitioners and other contractors taking contracts in the offices of the opposite parties also executed contract agreements which are signed by the contractors on one hand and the representatives of the offices of the opposite parties nos. 2 to 5 on the other hand.

(2.) IN these petitions the petitioners have prayed that the notification issued by the State Government dated 14th January, 1982 and all the consequential orders thereto may be quashed. They have also prayed that the opposite parties be directed not to demand the stamp duty from the petitioners and no deduction be made in this connection and in this background they have made reference to rule 367 of Financial Hand Book. Similar matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 7137 of 1986 Mahesh Katiyar v. State of U. P., and similar petitions which refused the prayer so far quashing of notification dated 14-1-1982 in those petitions was concerned. It was also held that the courts and the authorities under the Stamp Act will have to ignore Rule 367 completely while deciding the question of Stamp Duty and its recovery. It was further held that when a procedure has been provided under the statute for recovery of deficiency in stamp duty, the recevery has to be made under that procedure and in no other manner and the State Government in exercise of its executive power cannot provide a different procedure of making recovery of stamp duty from contractors under the order of State from the amounts due to them which is not provided in the Stamp Act and the Government cannot resort to it. We are in agreement with the said decision.