High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
M/S. Hariom Construction v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 40670 of 2006  RD-AH 13096 (7 August 2006)
WP No. 40670 of 2006
HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J
HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.
1. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel for the respondents.
2. According to the counsel for the petitioner this writ petition is against the notice demanding stamp duty on the security deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the terms of the work contract.
3. The aforesaid point is covered by a Division bench decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36087 of 1994 (Tajveer Singh and others vs. State of UP and others) reported in 1997 (2) AWC 1029.
4. In view of the reasons mentioned in the judgement rendered in the aforesaid writ petition, the impugned order so far as it demands stamp duty on security for performance of work contract from the petitioners on security deposit at the rate mentioned therein is quashed. The respondents will, however, be free to realise the stamp duty, (if not already paid), from the petitioners under Article 57, Schedule 1B of the Stamp Act as amended by the State of UP.
5. It is clarified that this order will be effective only if the notice demanding the stamp duty on the security for performance of the works contract is issued.
6. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.