Kali Charan Sahu vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging orders dated 24.07.2024 and 21.02.2025, passed by the Additional District Magistrate/Collector Stamps and the Commissioner/C.C.R.A. respectively. The dispute arose from an alleged partition deed executed on 24.09.2014, which the Assistant Commissioner/A.I.G. Jhansi reported as executed by the petitioner. A notice under section 33/47-A of the Stamp Act was issued, and the Collector Stamp imposed a penalty. A revision was allowed, remanding the matter. Subsequently, an order imposing penalty was passed, which was challenged before the C.C.R.A. The C.C.R.A. allowed the appeal and remanded the matter again. The petitioner contends that no valid partition deed was executed, as only one person signed it, and the signature is alleged to be forged. The petitioner also argues that proceedings were initiated without addressing the validity of the deed and without involving the original co-owners.
Held
The Court held that the repeated remands by the authorities were not permissible and that the appellate court was competent to decide the facts of the case itself. Citing the case of M/s Kanha Shree Steels vs. Assistant Deputy Commissioner CGST Division-VI, Ghaziabad, the Court emphasized that remands should not be made merely to dispose of the matter. The Court found that the authorities should have decided the issue definitively rather than remanding it multiple times. Consequently, the Appellate Order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner/C.C.R.A. was set aside. The matter was sent back to the Appellate Court with a direction to decide the issue conclusively. The parties were given the liberty to adduce evidence in support of their claims, and the Appellate Court was directed to decide the matter within a period of three months. The Court expressly left undecided the validity of the partition deed itself, as the direction was for the Appellate Court to decide it.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned orders, which have led to multiple remands of the matter, are sustainable in light of the Stamp Act and principles of natural justice? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 33 and 47-A of the Stamp Act). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the alleged partition deed was never validly executed as it was signed by only one person, and the signature is forged. They contended that the authorities failed to inquire into the validity of the deed and initiated proceedings against the petitioner without impleading the original co-owners. The petitioner further argued that the repeated remands by the authorities, instead of deciding the issue definitively, are not permissible and are merely an attempt to get rid of the matter. They relied on judgments in Walson Paints, Ghaziabad vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lukcnow; M/s Kamal Corporation, Bindki, District Fatehpur; and M/s Kanha Shree Steels vs. Assistant Deputy Commissioner CGST Division-VI, Ghaziabad. Revenue's arguments: The State-respondent supported the impugned orders, asserting that proceedings were rightly initiated based on the partition deed. They argued that it was not the petitioner's case that the property was not sold, and there was no denial that the petitioner was taking advantage of the alleged improper execution of the partition deed.
Sections Cited
Section 33, Section 47-A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 8653 of 2025 WITH WRIT - C No. - 14829 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. Since issues involved in these connected writ petition are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. WRIT - C No. - 8653 of 2025 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these writ petitions. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 24.07.2024 passed by Additional District Magistrate/Collector Stamps and the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by Commissioner/C.C.R.A. in Stamp Revision No.838 of 2024. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 20.12.2011, one Sanjay Rastogi Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Parth Goswami, Sanjay Goswami Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devesh Pandey, J.P. Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Kali Charan Sahu .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Atulesh Kumar Saxena .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner to look after his land and to do pairvi of his case against the petitioner. On 29.09.2015, the said Power of Attorney was cancelled. On 18.05.2017, in pursuance of the complaint made by the petitioner, the complaint was forwarded to A.I.G., Jhansi. On 27.07.2017, Assistant Commissioner/A.I.G. Jhansi prepared an inspection report alleging that the instruments of the partition dated 24.09.2014 have been executed by the petitioner. On 23.08.2017 notice under section 33/47-A of the Stamp Act was issued to the petitioner. On 22.09.2017 the petitioner filed a detailed objection. Not being satisfied on 03.11.2017, the Collector Stamp passed an order and imposed penalty against which the revision was preferred by the petitioner which was allowed and matter was remanded by the order dated 24.10.2018. In pursuance of the remanded order dated 24.07.2024, an order was passed in pursuance of penalty. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before C.C.R.A., who allowed the appeal and the matter was again remanded to the Collector. Hence, the present petition. He further submits that no partition deed has been executed and the alleged partition deed was never signed by two persons. Only one person has signed on it and the signature obtained therein is stated to be a forged signature. Further none of the authorities at any stage inquired on the validity of the alleged partition deed. He further submits that proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner without initiating any proceedings against the original co-owners, the Principal/Donee of the attorneys. He submits that photocopy produced bears signature of only one of the attorney whereas the signature of the other was missing. The execution of the instrument was not complete to make it a valid and effective instruments of partition which is chargeable with stamp duty under the Act. He further submits that an instruments of the partition is an instrument executed by co-owners of a U.P., Lukcnow, 2004 NTN (Vol. 24)-333, M/s Kamal Corporation, Bindki, District Fatehpur passed in Trade Tax Revision No.908 of 2006 vide order dated 28.08.2006 and M/s Kanha Shree Steels vs. Assistant Deputy Commissioner CGST Division-VI, Ghaziabad and 3 others passed in Writ Tax No.2746 of 2025 vide order dated 19.08.2025. Per contra, Sri A.C. Mishra. learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, supports the impugned orders and submits that proceedings have been rightly initiated against the petitioner only on the strength of partition deed have been executed. It is not the case of the petitioner that the property has not sold. He further submits that there is no denial of the said fact at any stage that the petitioner is taking advantage that partition deed is not duly executed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. The records shows that the appellate Court in the earlier round of litigation has remanded the matter to make a spot inspection. In pursuance thereof, presence of the petitioner was found. On the said fact the impugned orders were passed holding deficit of Stamp Duty and penalty which was challenged before the C.C.RA. and impugned orders have been passed allowing the appeal and remanding the matter for the second time. The authorities are competent to decide the issue one for all instead of reminder the matter, this Court in the case of M/s Kanha Shree Steels vs. Assistant Deputy Commissioner CGST Division-VI, Ghaziabad and 3 others (Supra) have expressed the view that the reminder should not be made just to get rid of the matter. The appellate Court is the competent to decide the facts of the case itself. In view of the above, the Appellate Order dated 21.02.2025 passed by Commissioner/C.C.R.A. is set-aside and matter is sent back to the Appellate Court to decide the issue one for all. It is open for the parties, to adduce the evidence in support of their claim and after obtaining the evidence, the matter shall be decided within a period of three months. These writ petitions succeeds and are allowed. September 15, 2025 Monika (Piyush Agrawal,J.) MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.