M/S VAIBHAV CORP. PVT. LTD. COMPANYversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     C/SCA/2754/2025                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2754 of 2025


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================

            Approved for Reporting                    Yes          No

================================================================
                       M/S VAIBHAV CORP. PVT. LTD. COMPANY
                                      Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
A R KADRI(7330) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
VASIMRAJA A KURESHI(8609) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ANGESH A PANCHAL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
================================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
        PRACHCHHAK

                                 Date : 17/03/2026

                                    JUDGMENT


1.      Rule     returnable     forthwith.    Mr.   Angesh   Panchal,      learned
Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for and
on behalf of the respondent-State Authorities.


2.      By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India read with the provisions of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958
(hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”), petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs :

        “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or
        direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 03.11.2023
        passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure ‘A’, as well as impugned order


                                      Page 1 of 5
      C/SCA/2754/2025                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




         dated 03.11.2023 passed by respondent no.1 in Stamp Appeal No. 165/23
         at Annexure ‘’, as being illegal, arbitrary, without application of mind, in the
         interest of justice;

         (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the impugned order dated
         03.11.2023 passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure ‘A’, pending admission
         and ,nal hearing of present petition, in the interest of justice;

         (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs
         as deemed ,t in the interest of justice.”


3.       Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the issue
herein pertains to land bearing Survey No.77 & 78 of Village Akota,
which has been given Final Plot No.76 after implementation of Town
Planning Scheme No.1, the said parcel of land came to be put under
reservation for the purpose of development of 'neighbourhood',
wherein Municipal Corporation has carved out several plots, wherein
the present land in question has been given plot No.1 and 2
admeasuring 875 square meters. That, the said plot came to be
allotted to Hemaben Sureshbhai Shah, who has acquire leasehold
rights of the said two plots for the period of 99 years, by way of
registered lease deed no.6949 registered on 10.10.2001, and since
then Hemaben Sureshbhai Shah has become the lease holder of the
said two plots. That thereafter, since Hemaben Sureshbhai Shah was
not     having          enough   expertise    in      construction   line,    Hemaben
Sureshbhai Shah entered into development agreement with present
petitioner and to that e=ect parties therein entered into one
development agreement dated 13.03.2010, whereby petitioner were
permitted to develop residential property, however, ownership of
leasehold right remained with Hemaben Sureshbhai Shah. That
thereafter, petitioner herein constructed residential appartment
known by "SUNSTONE", and once the project was completed, the
owner sold the Flat No.301 situated on 3 rd Floor of A-Tower to
Rantidev Aniruddha Dave and Kalpana Rantidev Dave, by way of


                                        Page 2 of 5
     C/SCA/2754/2025                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




registered sale deed no.11898 dated 27.09.2012, wherein the present
petitioner stood and signed as conDrming party. That thereafter, the
said transaction of 2010 with respect to development agreement in
favour of petitioner was subjected to scrutiny, wherein the authority
found short levying of stamp duty, and thereby show-cause notice
came to be issued to petitioner, whereby petitioner appeared before
the concern respondent no.3 authority, and as per the order dated
18.02.2015, the petitioner herein paid entire stamp duty amounting to
1,39,461/-, as provided under Section 5(z) of the Act. That thereafter,
again the said respondent no.3 issued notice to petitioner, to pay
another deDcit stamp duty worth Rs. 17,47,156/- with respect to
transaction of 2012 carried out between Hemaben Sureshbhai Shah
and Rantidev Aniruddha Dave and Kalpana Rantidev Dave, having
total consideration agreed worth Rs. 40,80,000/-, wherein party has
already paid Rs. 2,00,000/- stamp duty as per prevailing jantri rate at
that point in time. Moreover, with respect to development agreement,
the petitioner herein in the year 2015 itself, cleared all the payment
of stamp duty for having rights Gowing in out of development
agreement in his favour. That, since the petitioner did not appear
before the concern authority, the said authority passed an impugned
order on 03.11.2023 in Stamp/V-1/Vashi/9229/2023 ex-parte, ordering
petitioner to pay the deDcit stamp duty worth total Rs. 17,47,156/-
which also includes Rs. 1,75,000/- penalty.


4.      Being aggrieved and dissatisDed with the impugned order dated
03.11.2023             passed   by        the      respondent         No.3         in
Stamp/V-1/Vashi/9229/2023, petitioner has preferred this petition.


5.      Heard Mr. A.R. Kadri, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Angesh Panchal, learned Assistant Government


                                     Page 3 of 5
     C/SCA/2754/2025                            JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




Pleader appearing for the respondent-State authorities.


6.      Learned counsel Mr. Kadri has pointed out to this Court that the
disputed amount of Rs. 17,47,156/-, as mentioned in the order dated
03.11.2023 towards deDcit stamp duty is already paid by the
petitioner way back in the year 2015, however, the impugned order is
passed on 03.11.2023 and therefore, the same is required to be
quashed and set aside and the present petition is required to be
allowed.


7.      Learned AGP Mr. Panchal, appearing on behalf of the
respondent State Authorities has veriDed the said aspect from the
concerned oIcer and upon instructions from the concerned oIcer,
learned AGP Mr. Panchal states that the petitioner has already paid
the amount of deDcit stamp duty in the year 2015, as asked by the
respondent authorities and therefore, appropriate orders may be
passed.


8.      I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties. It appears from the record that the notice issued by the
respondent No.3 – Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation OIce was
challenged by the petitioner before the respondent No.2 – Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority, Gandhinagar by way of Dling an appeal
being Stamp Appeal No. 165 of 2023, which came to be disposed o=
by the concerned authority. Infact, the petitioner had not stated the
fact before the respondent No.2 that they have already paid the
amount towards deDcit stamp duty in the year 2015, he could have
pointed out to the appellate authority that they have already paid the
deDcit stamp duty, however, without considering this fact, the
respondent authority has passed the impugned order and therefore,


                                 Page 4 of 5
         C/SCA/2754/2025                                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




 the same is required to be quashed and set aside and the present
 petition is required to be allowed.


 9.         In the result, the present petition is allowed. The impugned
 order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 in Stamp/V-
 1/Vashi/9229/2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made
 absolute.

                                                                     (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

 Dolly




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 18/03/2026 15:25:31


                                                     Page 5 of 5