HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 8653 of 2025 WITH WRIT - C No. - 14829 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. Since issues involved in these connected writ petition are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. WRIT - C No. - 8653 of 2025 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these writ petitions. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 24.07.2024 passed by Additional District Magistrate/Collector Stamps and the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by Commissioner/C.C.R.A. in Stamp Revision No.838 of 2024. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 20.12.2011, one Sanjay Rastogi Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Parth Goswami, Sanjay Goswami Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devesh Pandey, J.P. Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Kali Charan Sahu .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Atulesh Kumar Saxena .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner to look after his land and to do pairvi of his case against the petitioner. On 29.09.2015, the said Power of Attorney was cancelled. On 18.05.2017, in pursuance of the complaint made by the petitioner, the complaint was forwarded to A.I.G., Jhansi. On 27.07.2017, Assistant Commissioner/A.I.G. Jhansi prepared an inspection report alleging that the instruments of the partition dated 24.09.2014 have been executed by the petitioner. On 23.08.2017 notice under section 33/47-A of the Stamp Act was issued to the petitioner. On 22.09.2017 the petitioner filed a detailed objection. Not being satisfied on 03.11.2017, the Collector Stamp passed an order and imposed penalty against which the revision was preferred by the petitioner which was allowed and matter was remanded by the order dated 24.10.2018. In pursuance of the remanded order dated 24.07.2024, an order was passed in pursuance of penalty. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before C.C.R.A., who allowed the appeal and the matter was again remanded to the Collector. Hence, the present petition. He further submits that no partition deed has been executed and the alleged partition deed was never signed by two persons. Only one person has signed on it and the signature obtained therein is stated to be a forged signature. Further none of the authorities at any stage inquired on the validity of the alleged partition deed. He further submits that proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner without initiating any proceedings against the original co-owners, the Principal/Donee of the attorneys. He submits that photocopy produced bears signature of only one of the attorney whereas the signature of the other was missing. The execution of the instrument was not complete to make it a valid and effective instruments of partition which is chargeable with stamp duty under the Act. He further submits that an instruments of the partition is an instrument executed by co-owners of a property whereby they divide their property amongst themselves. He further submits that in this third round of litigation, the authorities instead of deciding the issue one for all or remanding the matter just to get rid of the matter, which is not permissible. He in support of his submission, relied upon the judgements of this Court in the cases of Walson Paints, Ghaziabad vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lukcnow, 2004 NTN (Vol. 24)-333, M/s Kamal Corporation, Bindki, District Fatehpur passed in Trade Tax Revision No.908 of 2006 vide order WRIC No. 8653 of 2025 2 dated 28.08.2006 and M/s Kanha Shree Steels vs. Assistant Deputy Commissioner CGST Division-VI, Ghaziabad and 3 others passed in Writ Tax No.2746 of 2025 vide order dated 19.08.2025. Per contra, Sri A.C. Mishra. learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, supports the impugned orders and submits that proceedings have been rightly initiated against the petitioner only on the strength of partition deed have been executed. It is not the case of the petitioner that the property has not sold. He further submits that there is no denial of the said fact at any stage that the petitioner is taking advantage that partition deed is not duly executed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. The records shows that the appellate Court in the earlier round of litigation has remanded the matter to make a spot inspection. In pursuance thereof, presence of the petitioner was found. On the said fact the impugned orders were passed holding deficit of Stamp Duty and penalty which was challenged before the C.C.RA. and impugned orders have been passed allowing the appeal and remanding the matter for the second time. The authorities are competent to decide the issue one for all instead of reminder the matter, this Court in the case of M/s Kanha Shree Steels vs. Assistant Deputy Commissioner CGST Division-VI, Ghaziabad and 3 others (Supra) have expressed the view that the reminder should not be made just to get rid of the matter. The appellate Court is the competent to decide the facts of the case itself. In view of the above, the Appellate Order dated 21.02.2025 passed by Commissioner/C.C.R.A. is set-aside and matter is sent back to the Appellate Court to decide the issue one for all. It is open for the parties, to adduce the evidence in support of their claim and after obtaining the evidence, the matter shall be decided within a period of three months. These writ petitions succeeds and are allowed. September 15, 2025 Monika WRIC No. 8653 of 2025 3 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad