KAMAL JAIN Vs. COLLECTOR OF STAMPS DISTRICT GWALIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order of Board of Revenue dated 6.8.2012 whereby the Board has rejected the revision of the petitioner and affirmed the order of Collector of Stamps dated 21.7.2011. The brief facts necessary for deciding the matter are as under:- 1. The petitioner entered into an agreement to sale dated 22.12.2009 of some immovable property of a sum of Rs.100/- and the consideration was fixed for Rs.10 lakhs. On this basis Civil Suit was instituted in the Civil Court. In the proceedings before the Civil Court, the Court impounded the said agreement and sent it to the Collector of Stamp. The agreement is placed as Annexure P-3 by the petitioner. The Collector of Stamp, in turn started the proceedings and issued notices to the parties. He passed the impugned order dated 21.7.2011 thereby declared the market value of the property as Rs.10 lakhs. Rs. 10,000/- were directed to be paid as stamp duty. Since petitioner had already paid Rs.100/- on stamp duty, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.9900/- on stamp duty + Rs.99,000/- as penalty. This order was put to test in revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by impugned order dated 6.8.2012 rejected the revision and affirmed the order of Collector.

(2.) SHRI Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel with Shri Anvesh Jain, Advocate submits that both the authorities, Collector and Board of Revenue have erred in overlooking the fact that the power to impose penalty upto ten times of the deficit stamp duty is the maximum penalty and it can be done in rare cases. It is stated that such discretion in the matter of imposition of penalty should be exercised in a judicious manner. He submits that discretion means a discretion in accordance with law and there is no unfettered discretion with the Collector to impose penalty.

(3.) CRITICIZING the order Annexure P-2 wherein it is mentioned that the report was sent on 19.7.2011 it is argued that as per the order sheets it is clear that the report was received on 21.7.2011 only, the date when the Collector passed the final order. He submits that the petitioner's valuable right of defence is taken away. He relied on the following judgments:- (i) Umesh Kumar Prrakash Chandra Sharma Vs. Rajaram Ramchandra jat (2010(2) M.P.L.J. 104. (ii) U.P. Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Others (2012) 7 SCC 1. (iii) Shankaran Co-op. Housing Society Limited Vs. M. Prabhakar & others (AIR 2011 SCC 2161. (iv) Balkrishna Vs. Board of Revenue, M.P. & Others (AIR 1970 MP 74).