# Jai Prakash Asso. Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors. 1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 1155
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-19
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 66462 of 2006
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-prakash-asso-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-1156-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-50511
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri C.S. Singh, Sri R.P. Singh

Promissory Estoppel - Legitimate Expectation -
Exemption from Stamp Duty - Retrospective
Gazette Notification - Large Scale Infrastructure
Project - Public Interest - Refund of Stamp Paid
under Interim Orders - Effect of Clause (d) in
Exemption Notification

Held -
Where the St. Government, by G.O. dated
18.02.2003, had in principle resolved to exempt
stamp duty on public projects exceeding Rs.750
crores, and instruments were executed between
28.02.2003 to 21.07.2003 without payment of
stamp duty, subsequent demand notices dated
13.08.2004 and G.O. dated 30.08.2003 insisting
on
stamp
duty
could
not
override
the
retrospective
Gazette
Notification
dated
17.11.2007 issued under Section 9(1)(a) of the
Indian
Stamp
Act,
1899,
which
granted
remission from 13.02.2003. Petitioner, having
invested over Rs.750 crores, was eligible for
exemption
as
per
communication
dated
28.11.2007. Demand notices dated 13.08.2004,
G.O. dated 30.08.2003, and the order dated
13.10.2006 quashed. Recovery proceedings and
consequential certificates set aside. Amounts
deposited under interim orders to be refunded;
bank guarantees to be discharged. Writ allowed.

Citations Referred/Relevant:

## Text

8 All. Jai Prakash Asso. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1155
to initiate arbitration proceedings by itself
under Section 18 (3) of the MSMED Act,
2006 deserves to be set aside and is
accordingly set aside.

44. We find that the legislature has
enacted a special law in the form of Act of
2006 containing the special provisions in
respect of Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprises and further the legislature has
given overriding effect to Sections 15 to 23 of
the Act of 2006. Thus, the discretion given to
Facilitation Council under Section 18(3) of
the Act of 2006 in respect of selection of
forum of arbitration between the parties is
absolute and has overriding effect to any
other law. Therefore, in the event of
conciliation proceedings being carried out by
the Council and on its failure the Council
itself can proceed to arbitrate the dispute
between the parties and the prohibition
contained in Section 80 of the Act of 1996
will have no application in exercise of the
said discretion by the Council.

45. The law in respect of the application
of prohibition contained in Section 80 of the
Act of 1996 has already been dealt by the
Division Bench of this Court and by the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
the
aforementioned judgments and it has been
categorically held that where Facilitation
Council was itself Conciliator and in the
event of conciliation proceedings being
failed, the Council under Section 18(3) of the
Act of 2006 itself can proceed to arbitrate the
dispute and there the prohibition contained in
Section 80 of the Act of 1996 will have no
application.

46. So far as the second argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioners
that
Delhi
International
Arbitration Centre under the aegis of Delhi
High Court is an expert body and is well
equipped to carry out the quality arbitration
proceedings and therefore, the dispute in
question should be referred to the said
Arbitration Centre, is concerned, we find
that the legislature has framed special law in
the form of Act of 2006 to deal with various
kinds of issues involved in the functioning
of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
and therefore, the legislature under the Act
of 2006 has provided for constitution of the
Facilitation Council comprising of the
experts of the field of Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises and therefore, it is
absolutely misconceived on the part of the
petitioners to argue that the Facilitation
Council is not well equipped to carry out the
arbitration of the dispute between the
petitioners and Respondent No.2. Thus, the
said argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioners lacks merit and is
rejected.

47. In view of the aforesaid reasons,
we do not find any illegality or infirmity in
the orders dated 11.6.2019 and 24.7.2019
passed by the Facilitation Council in Claim
Petition No.402 of 2019.

48. Accordingly, the writ petition
filed by the petitioners is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 1155
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 66462 of 2006

Jai Prakash Asso. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Raghav Nayer, Bhavya Tewari, Sri Prashant
Shukla, Sri Rohan Gupta, Sri Y. Verma, Sri
Naveen Sinha, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri C.S. Singh, Sri R.P. Singh

Promissory Estoppel - Legitimate Expectation -
Exemption from Stamp Duty - Retrospective
Gazette Notification - Large Scale Infrastructure
Project - Public Interest - Refund of Stamp Paid
under Interim Orders - Effect of Clause (d) in
Exemption Notification

Held -
Where the St. Government, by G.O. dated
18.02.2003, had in principle resolved to exempt
stamp duty on public projects exceeding Rs.750
crores, and instruments were executed between
28.02.2003 to 21.07.2003 without payment of
stamp duty, subsequent demand notices dated
13.08.2004 and G.O. dated 30.08.2003 insisting
on
stamp
duty
could
not
override
the
retrospective
Gazette
Notification
dated
17.11.2007 issued under Section 9(1)(a) of the
Indian
Stamp
Act,
1899,
which
granted
remission from 13.02.2003. Petitioner, having
invested over Rs.750 crores, was eligible for
exemption
as
per
communication
dated
28.11.2007. Demand notices dated 13.08.2004,
G.O. dated 30.08.2003, and the order dated
13.10.2006 quashed. Recovery proceedings and
consequential certificates set aside. Amounts
deposited under interim orders to be refunded;
bank guarantees to be discharged. Writ allowed.

Citations Referred/Relevant:

1. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs St.
of U.P, (1979) 2 SCC 409

2. Union of India Vs Godfrey Philips India Ltd.,
(1985) 4 SCC 369

3. St. of Bihar Vs Suprabhat Steel Ltd., (1999) 1
SCC 31

4. Kasinka Trading Vs U.O.I., (1995) 1 SCC 274

5. Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. Vs St. of U.P.,
(2011) 3 SCC 193

6. St. of Raj. Vs J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd., (2004)
7 SCC 673

7. Commissioner of Customs Vs Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 488

8. Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. Vs
Electricity Inspector, (2007) 5 SCC 447

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
& Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Naveen Sinha, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rohan
Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Nimai Das assisted by Sri Amit
Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel.

2. When the State of U.P. had
incorporated the Taj Expressway Industrial
Development
Authority
(hereinafter
referred to as "Authority") under the U.P.
Industrial Development Area Act, 1976 for
the development of a project by which a
six-lane 160 kms. expressway was to be
laid down, the petitioner, which is a private
developer, was transferred certain land,
connecting NOIDA and Agra on the virgin
area along the Yamuna river. When the
transfer took place of the land from the
Authority to the petitioner, agreements
were
entered
into
and
as
per
the
Government Order dated 27.2.2003, the
agreements were executed on a stamp of
Rs.100/-. The Government, to see that
private enterprise was encouraged, had on
18.2.2003 issued a circular and had desired
in principle that all transactions, for public
projects, above the value of Rs. 750 crore
were not to be stamped. In pursuance
thereof when in favour of the petitioner 14
instruments
were
executed
between
28.2.2003 and 21.7.2003, no stamp duty
was paid. On 13.8.2004, however 14
separate notices for the 14 separate
8 All. Jai Prakash Asso. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1157
instruments were issued for deficiency of
stamps. These can be found at Annexure-18
of the writ petition, from Page Nos. 169 to
183. The petitioner challenged these
notices along with the Government Order
dated 30.8.2003 which had stated in so
many words that till such time as there was
a gazette notification u/s 9(1)(a) of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, stamp duty had to
be paid on all transactions. Aggrieved
thereof, the petitioner filed the instant writ
petition basing its claim on the principles of
promissory
estoppel
and
legitimate
expectation.

3. The petitioner in the writ petition
had stated that since the Government in
principle had agreed that all private
developers who were a part of the Taj
Expressway Project were to be given the
exemption from the depositing of the stamp
duty,
the
Government
Order
dated
30.8.2003 could not be issued. The
petitioner, therefore, had prayed that the
notices dated 13.8.2004 be quashed and
also prayed for the quashing of the
Government Order dated 30.8.2003. In the
meantime, while the writ petition was
pending, the stamp authority (A.D.M. of
Finance & Revenue) on 13.10.2006 passed
orders upholding the demand as was made
in the notices and therefore the order dated
13.10.2006 was also challenged. In the writ
petition there was also a prayer for a
command to the respondents that they may
provide, as per the provisions of the Stamp
Act, 1899, the advantages to the petitioner
which were flowing out of the circulars of
the Government Order dated 28.2.2003 and
10.4.2003.

4. From the record, we find that
during the pendency of the writ petition by
a gazette notification dated 17.11.2007 the
State of U.P. issued a notification that if
there was an investment of Rs.750 crores or
more and the project was in the public
interest and if no remission etc. of the
stamp duty had already been availed, then
no stamp duty would be leviable. This
Government notification which was dated
17.11.2007 was applied retrospectively and
was made effective from 13.02.2003. The
government
notification
which
was
gazetted on 17.11.2007 is being reproduced
herein below:-

"The Governor is pleased to order the
publication of the following English
translation of the Government notification
no.K.N.5-4513(1)/11-2007-500(22)-2003
dated November 17, 2007 for general
information:

No. K.N.S.5-4513(1)/11-2007500(22)-2003 Lucknow,

Dated November 17, 2007

In exercise of the powers under clause
(a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act no. 02 of
1899) as amended in its application to
Uttar Pradesh, the Governor with a view to
promoting large projects, having capital
investment of Rupee 750 crores or more, is
pleased to remit with effect from February
13, 2003, the stamp duty chargeable on the
instruments of transfer under the said Act,
executed for transfer of land in the interest
of such project;

Provided that,-

(a) the above said remission in stamp
duty on the concerned instruments shall be
available in relation to the projects to
which Cabinet or the sub-committee of the
Cabinet on Economic Affairs, as the case
may be has given approval on the
recommendation
of
an
authorized
Committee constituted for the purpose
under the Chairmanship of the Chief
Secretary of the State Government. The
1158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authorized
Committee,
before
recommending reduction in, or remission
from duty, shall examine the project on the
criterion that-

(I) Investment of Rs. 750 crore or
more is being made in the project.

(II) The Project is in the public
interest.

(III) Any facility including remission
of duty is necessary to be given by the State
Government in the public interest, to make
the project financially viable.

(b) The Principal Secretary/Secretary
of the concerned department or his
representative, specially nominated for this
purpose, shall certify that the capital
investment in the project to which the
instrument relates is of Rupees 750 crores
or more and due approval has been
obtained from the competent level after
following the laid down procedure. A
certificate to this effect will be produced at
the time of registration of the instrument.

(c) The said criterion shall come into
force with immediate effect. But any
project, in which remission or reduction
has already been given prior to this
notification, after taking the approval of the
Cabinet or Sub-committee of the Cabinet
on
Economic
Affairs
on
the
recommendation
of
the
authorized
committee, need not be reviewed.

(d) Any stamp duty, which has been
paid on any instrument, shall not be
refunded.

(e) No remission of stamp duty shall
be admissible to the entrepreneur or the
developer of the project, on the instruments
which are being executed for transfer of the
land so obtained to any third party.

By order,

K. CHANDRAMOULI,

Pramukh Sachiv."

5. Basing his arguments on the
Government notification dated 17.11.2007,
learned counsel for the petitioner states that
now since u/s 9(1)(a) of the Stamp Act,
1899 the notification for the waving off of
the stamp duty had been issued, no demand
of stamp duty which was made by the
notices dated 13.8.2004 could be levied.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that no stamp duty had till date
been paid by the petitioner. It is also
submitted that as per the order dated
11.12.2006 and the order dated 23.2.2007,
passed by this Court in the instant writ
petition, the petitioner had not deposited
any stamp duty vis-a-vis instruments
executed between 28.2.2003 and 21.7.2003.
Any deposit, which was made by the
petitioner vide order dated 23.2.2007, was
in the form of bank guarantees. For
convenience the order dated 11.12.2006
and 23.2.2007 are being reproduced as
under:-

"11.12.2006

Steps taken within three drays.

C.A. file within three weeks.

R.A. file within one week.

List thereafter.

The respondents shall not take any
coercive action against the petitioner."

"23.2.2007

Heard Shri R.N. Trivedi, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents.

In spite of the order dated 11.12.2006,
counter affidavit has not been filed by the
respondents nor the respondent no.5 has
entered appearance. Today, an application
for amendment has been moved wherein
several orders passed by the authorities are
also under challenge.
8 All. Jai Prakash Asso. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1159

The
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the respondents prays for
further time to file counter affidavit to the
main petition as well as to the amendment
application. However, he has submitted
that that the Court fee paid on the
amendment application is not sufficient and
the petitioner be directed to deposit certain
amount as he has challenged the orders
passed under the Act demanding a further
stamp duty.

In view of the above, counter affidavit
to the main petition as well as to the
amendment application may be filed by the
respondents within four weeks. Rejoinder
affidavits to the same may be filed within
two weeks thereafter.

List the petition after six weeks.

Meanwhile, learned counsel for the
petitioner may make the deficiency of the
court fee in the amendment application
good. Petitioner undertakes to deposit 15
percent of the outstanding dues as per the
demand through various orders challenged
in the amendment application in cash and
10 percent thereof by bank guarantee
within four weeks to the satisfaction of the
authority concerned."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has categorically stated that the petitioner
had invested much more than Rs. 750
crores and, therefore, was eligible for the
remission as was being granted by the State
Government as per the gazette notification
dated 17.11.2007. To establish that the
petitioner was entitled for the remission
under the gazette notification, the petitioner
has brought to the notice of the Court the
communication of the Secretary, State of
U.P. dated 28.11.2007 which clearly states
that the petitioner had invested more than
Rs.750 crores and was entitled for the
waving off of the stamp duty as per the
gazette notification dated 17.11.2007. The
communication dated 28.11.2007 is being
reproduced herein under:-

"2. इस सम्बांि में मुझे यह िहने िा कनदेश हुआ है कि
ताज एक्सप्रेसवे पररयोजना िी िुल लागत लगभग रू.3200.00
िरोड है, जो रू०. 750.00 िरोड से अकिि है। उक्त पररयोजना
लोिकहत में है और पररयोजना िो कवत्तीय रूप से जीवान्त बनाने हेतु
राज्य सरिार द्वारा िोई सुकविा, कजसमें शुल्ि में छूट भी सकम्मकलत
है, कदया जाना आवश्यि है। िर एवां कनबन्िन अनुभाग-5 िी
अकिसूचना कदनाांि 17.11.2007 (जो कदनाांि 13.02.2003
से प्रभावी है) िे प्रस्तर (ग) िे अन्तगदत कदये गये प्राकविानों से उक्त
पररयोजना आच्छाकदत है, कजसिे अन्तगदत पररयोजना िे कलये प्रथम
चरण में होने वाले ट्रान्स्जेक्शन यथा-शासन/ ताज एक्सप्रेसवे
प्राकििरण से मै० जय प्रिाश इण्डस्ट्रीज कल० िे पक्ष में सडि एवम्
कविास हेतु भूकम िे कलये हस्ताांतररत िी जा रही भूकम (लगभग
4100 हेक्टेयर) पर स्टैम्प-शुल्ि से छूट प्रदान िरने िे सम्बांि में
कनिादररत प्रकक्रया िा अनुसरण िरने िे पिात सक्षम स्तर से समुकचत
अनुमोदन कदनाांि 27.02.2003 िो प्राप्त िर कलया गया है।

उपयुदक्त िे दृकष्टगत िर एवां कनबन्िन िी उपरोक्त अकिसूचना
कदनाांि 17.11.2007 में कदये गये प्राकविानों िे अऩ्तगदत ताज
एक्सप्रेसवे पररयोजना िो स्टाम्प-शुल्ि में छूट देय है।"

7. Sri Nimai Das, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel, has submitted that
such amounts which had been deposited by
the petitioner before the gazette notification
dated 17.11.2007, could not be refunded to
the petitioner. In support thereof he has
read out the paragraph-9 of the counter
affidavit. Since learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel heavily relied upon
paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit, the
same is being reproduced hereinunder:-

"9.
That
the
Government,
vide
notification dated 17.11.2007, remitted the
stamp duty with retrospective effect, with
effect from 13.2.2003 with a rider that any
stamp duty which has been paid on any
instrument, shall not be refunded. The
petitioner, as stated above, has sought
remission under the notification dated
1160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
17.11.2007 and has also paid stamp duty
on the instrument in question under the
direction of the Hon'ble Court during the
pendency of the writ petition, the amount
already paid towards the stamp duty is
non-refundable in view of the specific
condition of the remission of stamp duty."

8. Learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel also relied upon the proviso- (d) of
the gazette notification dated 17.11.2007
and submitted that any stamp duty which
had been paid on any instrument before the
coming of the notification dated 17.11.2007
by the petitioner on its own, shall not be
refunded.

9. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, we are of the view that after the
gazette notification dated 17.11.2007 was
published in the official gazette, the stamp
duty had to be charged as per the gazette
notification and the gazette notification
very
categorically
states
that
any
transaction, which had taken place after
13.02.2003 on any investment made by any
private developer on any large public
project of the State of U.P. having an
investment of Rs. 750 crores or more, no
stamp under the Stamp Act, 1899 would be
chargeable.

10. The petitioner definitely had invested
more than Rs. 750 crores as is clear from
the
communication
of
the
State
Government dated 28.11.2007 which has
also been reproduced in this judgement.
Under such circumstances, we are of the
view that notices which were issued against
the petitioner on 13.8.2004 cannot be
sustained in the eye of law and, therefore,
are being quashed. The Government Order
which had given the State the authority to
charge stamp duty dated 30.8.2003 vis-avis the petitioner is also quashed. The
impugned order dated 13.10.2006, which
was passed in pursuance of the notices
dated 13.8.2004 also stands quashed.

11. Needless to say that all
consequential recovery certificates also
stand quashed. All deposits, made by the
petitioner in pursuance of the interim order
dated 23.2.2007, shall be returned to the
petitioner and the bank guarantees shall
stand discharged.

12. For all the reasons stated above,
the writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 1160
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3275 of 2023

Chandra Rekha ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Nadeem
Murtaza,
Suryansh
Singh
Suryavanshi, Wali Nawaz Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Civil Law - Essential Commodities Act,
1955 - Section 6A - Where a vehicle is seized
under of the (U.P. Amendment), it is mandatory
for the Collector to give the owner of the seized
conveyance an option to pay a fine not
exceeding the market value of the vehicle in lieu
of confiscation. Failure to offer such an option
vitiates
the
confiscation
order.
Both
the
confiscation order passed by the District
Magistrate and the appellate order were
quashed for having been passed in violation of
the mandatory second proviso to Section 6A.