SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITEDversusCHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY GUJARAT

      C/SCA/2139/2026                         JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2139 of 2026


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==========================================
         Approved for Reporting              Yes    No
                                             Yes    --
==========================================
       SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED
                               Versus
     CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR AMRISH D AHIR(10806) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. JAIMIN R DAVE(7022) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. YASH B SIKKA(17310) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV SHARMA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                         Date : 20/03/2026

                          ORAL JUDGMENT



1.       RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, learned
Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for
respondents.


2.       With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, the present petition is taken up for =nal hearing



                              Page 1 of 5
     C/SCA/2139/2026                                JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




and disposal.


3.      Present petition is =led by the petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Gujarat
Stamp Act, 1958 seeking following reliefs:-


          “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash and set
               aside the impugned order / communication dated
               13.12.2025 passed by Respondent No.1.

          (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash and set
              aside the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by
              Respondent No.2 whereby Stamp Duty and
              Penalty is imposed on the Petitioner under Section
              39 of the Stamp Act;

                In the alternative,

                YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct
                Respondent No.1 to consider application 2led
                under Section 53 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958
                along with connected application afresh on merits
                after a6ording the Petitioner a reasonable
                opportunity of personal hearing, in accordance
                with law and within such time as this Hon’ble
                Court may deem 2t.

          (C) Pending hearing, adjudication and 2nal disposal of
              this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to
              direct Respondents to deposit before the registry
              of this Hon’ble Court a sum of Rs.14,60,54,795/-
              (Rupees Fourteen Crores Sixty Lakhs Fifty Four
              Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Five only) along
              with interest at the rate of 12% payable from the
              date of protest letter dated 05.08.2025.

          (D) Any other and further Relief deemed just and
              proper be granted in the interest of justice; and

          (E) To provide for the cost of this petition.”


                                      Page 2 of 5
     C/SCA/2139/2026                              JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




4.      It is contended that the petitioner has challenged the order /
communication dated 13.12.2025 passed by respondent No.1
whereby without aFording any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, rejected the application =led by the petitioner under
Section 53 read with Section 44 of the Gujarat Stamp Act (for short
“the Act”) on the ground that it was barred by law of limitation which
is illegal, arbitrary and breach of the principles of natural justice. It is
contended that without issuing any notice and/or aFording any
opportunity of hearing, respondent No.1 has proceeded to reject
revision application preferred under Section 53 read with Section 44
of the Act on the ground that application seeking refund of stamp
duty is time barred under Section 44(2) of the Act. It is also contended
that respondent No.1 has failed to appreciate that the petitioner that
the petitioner had =led application challenging the order dated
22.07.2025 passed by respondent No.2 and consequentially sought
refund of the stamp duty and penalty paid under protest pursuant to
order dated 22.07.2025 passed by respondent No.2 as per Section 44
of the Act. It is further contended that respondent No.1 has failed to
appreciate that without pressing Section 44 of the Act into service,
the revision was maintainable under Section 53 of the Act and it
ought to have been adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of
the Act.


5.      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the respondents at length. Perused the
material placed on record.


6.      Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the


                                 Page 3 of 5
     C/SCA/2139/2026                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




averments made in the petition and submissions of learned counsel
for the respective parties, it appears that the petitioner has =led
revision application under Section 53 r/w. Section 44 of the Act along
with the application for condonation of delay, which came to be
rejected by respondent No.1 without aFording any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, the present petition is =led.
Considering the aforesaid aspect, this Court is of the opinion that the
petition deserves to be allowed.


7.      It is worthwhile to refer to Section 53 of the Act which reads as
under:-


          “53. Control of and statement of case to Chief controlling
          Revenue Authority. - (1) the powers exercisable by a
          Collector under [Chapter III, Chapter IV and Chapter V] and
          under clause (a) of the 2rst proviso to section 27 shall in all
          cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling
          Revenue Authority:

          [Provided that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority shall
          not entertain an application made by a person under sub-
          section (1), unless, -

          (a) such application is presented within a period of [ninety
          days] from the date of order of the Collector:

          [Provided that if the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is
          satis2ed that such person was prevented for suGcient
          reasons from presenting the application within the period
          speci2ed above, he may allow such person to present the
          application within a further period of ninety days on
          payment of non-refundable amount of rupees one
          thousand for every thirty days or part thereof.]

          (b) such person deposits twenty-2ve per cent, of the
          amount of duty or as the case may be amount of di6erence
          of duty payable by him in respect of subject matter of the
          instrument for which application has been made:




                                     Page 4 of 5
       C/SCA/2139/2026                                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 20/03/2026




              (2) If any Collector, acting under section 31 [section 32A]
              section 39 or section 40 feels doubt as to the amount of
              duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may
              draw up a statement of the case, and refer it, with his own
              opinion thereon, for the decision of the Chief Controlling
              Revenue Authority.

              (3) Such authority shall consider the case and send a
              copy of its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed to
              assess and charge the duty (if any) in conformity with such
              decision.”


 8.         It is now well settled that if the Chief Controlling Revenue
 Authority is decided the application without giving any opportunity of
 hearing to the parties in order to exercise power under Section 53(a)
 of the Act, the action of the respondents deserves to be quashed and
 set aside. In view of the aforesaid aspects, it appears that the action
 on the part of respondent No.1 in rejecting the revision application
 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is illegal,
 unjust and arbitrary and the same deserves to be quashed and set
 aside.

 9.         In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order /
 communication dated 13.12.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside
 and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 – authority to
 hear afresh after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and
 considering the contentions raised by the petitioner available under
 the law and decide the same in accordance with law and on merits as
 early as possible. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.


                                                                      (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
 V.R. PANCHAL

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL(HC00171), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/03/2026 17:52:30




                                                          Page 5 of 5