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

     C/SCA/2756/2025                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2756 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/2756/2025                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




        dated 03.11.2023 passed by respondent no.1 in Stamp Appeal No. 166/23
        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.11 and 20
admeasuring 750 square meters. That, the said plot came to be
allotted to Bhadreshbhai Ramanbhai Patel, 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 Bhadreshbhai has become the lease holder of the said two plots.
That thereafter, since Bhadreshbhai Ramanbhai Patel was not having
enough expertise in construction line, Bhadreshbhai Ramanbhai Patel
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 Bhadreshbhai. That thereafter, petitioner herein constructed
residential appartment known by "MOONSTONE", and once the project
was completed, the owner sold the Flat No.101 situated on 1 st Floor of
B-Tower to Poonam Gobind Nankani and Gobind Bhojraj Nankani, by
way of registered sale deed no.12458 dated 17.10.2012, wherein the


                                       Page 2 of 5
     C/SCA/2756/2025                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




present petitioner stood and signed as con@rming party. That
thereafter, the said transaction of 2010 with respect to development
agreement in favour of petitioner was subjected to audit, 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 16.05.2015, 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 de@cit stamp duty worth Rs. 14,97,562/-
with respect to same transaction of 2012 carried out between
Bhadreshbhai and Poonamben and other, having total consideration
agreed worth Rs. 38,00,000/-, wherein party has already paid Rs.
2,24,200/- 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 Cowing 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/9231/2023        ex-parte,      ordering
petitioner to pay the de@cit stamp duty worth total Rs. 16,47,562/-
which also includes Rs. 1,50,000/- penalty.


4.      Being aggrieved and dissatis@ed with the impugned order dated
03.11.2023             passed   by        the      respondent         No.3         in
Stamp/V-1/Vashi/9231/2023, petitioner has preferred this petition.


5.      Heard Mr. A.R. Kadri, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Angesh Panchal, learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent-State authorities.


                                     Page 3 of 5
     C/SCA/2756/2025                            JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




6.      Learned counsel Mr. Kadri has pointed out to this Court that the
disputed amount of Rs. 16,47,562/-, as mentioned in the order dated
03.11.2023 towards de@cit 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 veri@ed the said aspect from the
concerned oGcer and upon instructions from the concerned oGcer,
learned AGP Mr. Panchal states that the petitioner has already paid
the amount of de@cit 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 OGce was
challenged by the petitioner before the respondent No.2 – Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority, Gandhinagar by way of @ling an appeal
being Stamp Appeal No. 166 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 de@cit stamp duty in the year 2015, he could have
pointed out to the appellate authority that they have already paid the
de@cit stamp duty, however, without considering this fact, the
respondent authority has passed the impugned order and therefore,
the same is required to be quashed and set aside and the present


                                 Page 4 of 5
        C/SCA/2756/2025                                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026




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/9231/2023 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 15:24:09

                                                    Page 5 of 5