CWP No. 7021 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7021 of 2010 Date of decision August 23, 2011 M/s Partap Feuran Ltd. ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Sherry K Singla , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG., Punjab for the respondents. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioner challenges the assessment of a higher stamp duty made for the document which had been registered on 14.2.2005 but later on the Collector assessed the additional stamp duty of `54,000/- as payable. This order of the Collector was challenged by an appeal to the Commissioner pointing out several irregularities in the enquiry of the Collector. The Commissioner, therefore, directed a fresh enquiry to be made by remanding the same to the Collector. The Collector made a fresh assessment stating that the property was much more valuable than what was originally assessed and as held by the impugned order, the stamp duty payable was `2,36,000/-, that is, more than the CWP No. 7021 of 2010 2 amount which was originally assessed. 2. I find the manner of adjudication rendered by the Collector to be wholly erroneous. When the petitioner had been called upon to pay the requisite duty through a notice issued by an additional duty of `54,000/-, the assessment made by the Commissioner was only for giving the petitioner an appropriate opportunity to explain his own stand and such an enquiry cannot enlarge the liability to even a sum larger than how it was originally assessed by the Collector. A fresh assessment taken by the Collector on the basis of a report by the Sub Divisional Magistrate could not have been relied on and the petitioner claims that he was not even aware of such a report from Sub Divisional Magistrate. I find that the liability could not have been any more than how it was originally assessed. The counsel for the petitioner states that he would be prepared to pay `54,000/-, as originally assessed. 3. I set aside the impugned order and direct `54,000/- as originally assessed, as payable by the petitioner. The impugned order is modified and the writ petition is allowed to the above extent on retaining the first order that was passed by the Collector on 30.4.2007. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 23, 2011 archana