M N PUSHPAVALLI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, I propose to dispose of them by a common order.

(2.) Under a registered Gift deed dated 5-4-1980 (Annexure-A in W.P.No. 21236 of 1983) one Smt.Vedavalli gifted immoveable Property bearing Municipal No 21/1, 5th Temple Street, Malleswaram, Bangalore, fully described in the Schedule to the said Deed to the petitioner in W.P No. 21236 of 1983. In the said deed, the value of the said property was stated as Rs. 10,000/- and the stamp duty payable thereon under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 34 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was paid which also has been registered by the concerned Registering Officer under the Indian Registration Act of 1908.

(3.) On a reference made by the Registering Officer of the said document, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Detection of Undervaluation of Stamps, Bangalore (herein-after referred to as the D.C.) issued show-cause notice No. MVD. 1287/80-81 to the petitioner in W.P.No. 21236 of 1983 (Annexure-B) in Form No.II (hereinafter referred to as the Form No.2 notice) specified in the Karnataka Stamps (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under the Act to determine the proper market value of the property, levy the proper stamp duty thereon and recover the difference to be found due under the Act. On receipt of the said notice (Annexure-B), the petitioner appeared before the D.C. and moved for extension of time for filing her objections. But, the D.C. without acceding to the same, determined the market value and directed the Tahsildar for Detection of Undervaluation of Stamps, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Tahsildar) to recover a sum of Rs. 3,840/- as difference of duty from the petitioner, in compliance of which, the said Tahsildar by his notice No. GAL. 52/83-84 dated 9-11-1983 (Annexure-D) has called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,840/- as difference of stamp duty, the validity of which is challenged by her under Article 226 of the Constitution.