Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LALJI YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Lalji Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 3171 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1173 (18 January 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.4

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3171 of 2007

Lalji Yadav .....Petitioner

versus

State of U.P  & others ....Respondents

****

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.7.2002 passed by the  Commissioner directing for recovery of deficiency  in the stamp duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 3,05,344.00.  Petitioner filed a revision which too has been rejected on 28.9.2006.

The counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned orders contended that there was no jurisdiction  to impose penalty of Rs. 16544/-.  The learned standing counsel Shri R.K.Sahi contended that the power to impose penalty  was very much with the imposting authority in view of section 47-A(4).  He submits that amendment made in Section 47-A by sub section (4) was only with regard to realisation of simple interest  which has no bearing in the present case.  

The learned counsel for the petitioner  could not substantiate  his submission that there was no power or jurisdiction  to impose penalty.  The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that 1/3rd amount  deposited by the petitioner during pendency of the revision be also adjusted.

In above view of the matter, no grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned orders.    However, the 1/3rd amount deposited during pendency of the revision shall be adjusted in the amount to be deposited by the petitioner under the impugned orders.  

With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed.

Date 18.1.2007

IB


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.