SAMHI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 REP. BY ITS VICE-PRESIDENT MR. GYANA DAS Vs. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DIVISION, DISTRICT REGISTRAR, SUB-REGISTRAR AND SUMANGALA PROPERTIES (REGISTERED PARTNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No. 1 to 3. He is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks. Considering the nature of disposal, notice to respondent No. 4 is unnecessary. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 09.11.2012 issued by the first respondent.

(2.) THOUGH several contentions have been urged in the instant petition, the brief facts that are necessary to be noticed for the purpose of disposal of the instant petition is that in respect of the document which was presented for registration, a notice had been issued with regard to undervaluation. The second respondent by the order dated 17.07.2012 at Annexure -M to the petition had considered the rival contentions and has by the said order held that the property had been undervalued and the deficit stamp duty is to be paid. In that regard, it was ordered that a sum of Re, 1,21,09,020/ - being the deficit stamp duty and registration fee was to be paid. After the order dated 17.07.2012 was passed, the petitioners have paid the said amount and have completed the process of registration and received the document. However, as, contemplated under Section 45A(5) of the Karnataka Stamp Act (for short the 'Act'), an appeal was filed to the first respondent. The first respondent on receipt of the appeal has issued the impugned endorsement dated 09.11.2012 wherein it is stated that since the petitioner has already paid the stamp duty and secured the registration, the appeal would not arise for consideration and has not accepted the appeal. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) BE that as it may, even otherwise, the petitioner while paying the said amount, through their communication dated 31.07.2012 have indicated that the same is being paid under protest. In such circumstance, the appeal would have to be considered on its merits and the result of the same one way or the other would decide the fact of the amount which has already been deposited. In other words, if the petitioner succeeds in the appeal, the petitioner would be entitled to seek for refund of that portion of the amount which has been paid or otherwise, the amount paid would be in compliance with law. Therefore, the endorsement dated 09.11.2012 being unsustainable is quashed. The first respondent is directed to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner, consider the same on its merits after providing opportunity to the petitioner and pass a considered order thereof. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.