High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Lakhan Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Finance & Revenue & Others - WRIT - C No. 55954 of 2005  RD-AH 1965 (17 August 2005)
Civil Misc. W.P. No. 55954 of 2005
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli J.
Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel and have examined the impugned order of the A.D.M. (F & R) dated 16th May 2005 enclosed as annexure-1 to this writ petition. Under section 33(4), no doubt he has the power to call for the original instruments for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the adequacy of the duty paid thereon.
However, considering the long period which has elapsed since the execution of the instrument in question till the issuing of the notice dated 16.5.2005, we are of the opinion that the petitioner should be permitted in response to that notice dated 16.5.2005 to furnish a self-attested photostat copy of the instruments in question. The photostat copy will be both sides of each paper. After examining the said photostat copy, if the ADM has any reason to believe that adequate stamp duty has not been paid, he will subject to limitation, be at liberty to issue a fresh notice under section 33(4) calling for the original instrument, but only after giving detailed reasons for his conclusion that adequate stamp duty had not been paid thereon. If, on the contrary, the ADM is satisfied from the photostat copy that adequate stamp duty had been paid, he will discharge the notice.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
Dated : August 17, 2005
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.