Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Delhi · body

2026 DAILYLAW 953 (DEL)

AM MINING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. COLLECTOR OF STAMPS DELHI & ANR.

W.P.(C)/4172/2026 · 2026-04-01

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4172/2026, CM APPL. 20384/2026 & CM APPL. 20385/2026 AM MINING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashim Sood Adv, Ms. Anannya Ghosh Adv, Ms. Mrinalini Mishra, Mr. Karan Kumar adv, Mr. Mukul Arya adv. versus COLLECTOR OF STAMPS DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Dhananjaya Mishra, Mr Navneet Dogra, Mr Amritesh Mohanty, Mr Bhargav Verma, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 01.04.2026 1. The impugned order is challenged on various grounds. By the impugned order, a penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) has been imposed on the petitioner for the delay in seeking adjudication of the stamp duty payable on share certificates issued by the petitioner. 2. One of the grounds to challenge the impugned order is that the same is non-speaking as it does not contain any reason whatsoever. 3. It is stated that there is a contravention of Clause 4(1) of the ‘Guidelines for speedy disposal of cases pending for adjudication of Stamp Duty’ [‘Guidelines’] dated 31.01.2024 issued by the GNCTD. Another ground which is taken is that the penalty imposed is not at the rate as This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 11:05:08 mandated under Clause 4(2) of the Guidelines, i.e., 16 per cent per annum on proper stamp duty or the deficit for the period of delay. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on advance instructions, contends that the impugned order can be assailed under Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Duty, 1899. The petitioner, however, submits that so far as the payment of stamp duty i.e. Rs.89,97,218/- (Rupees Eighty-Nine Lakh Ninety-Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Eighteen only) is concerned, he does not have any dispute in depositing the same. He, however, points out that the respondents only accept the payment in composite form, including penalty. He has various objections for imposing the penalty as has been recorded. 5. A perusal of the impugned order, though, contains brief reasons. However, it does not seem to explain the overall facts and circumstances as to why the imposition of the penalty to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) is the only option. The concerned authority, however, submits that despite various opportunities, the petitioner did not appear. This position is disputed by the petitioner. 6. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances, the Court finds that an additional opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to satisfy the concerned authority that the penalty to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) is not warranted. The same, however, shall be subject to payment of the admitted stamp duty to the tune of Rs.89,97,218/- (Rupees Eighty-Nine Lakh Ninety-Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Eighteen only) within 15 days from today. 7. Let respondent no.1 to facilitate the petitioner to deposit the said amount with the State Government through the Stock Holding Corporation This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 11:05:08 of India Ltd. 8. On doing so, let respondents to issue the notice to the petitioner for fresh hearing. Let the petitioner be heard, thereafter, a speaking order be passed. Impugned order stands set aside. 9. All rights and contentions are left open. 10. If the petitioner’s grievance is not fully mitigated, he shall be at liberty to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 11. Petition stands disposed of. 12. The respondents shall make an endeavour to decide the matter afresh within two months from the date of conclusion of the hearing. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J APRIL 1, 2026/P This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/04/2026 at 11:05:08