GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED (AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED) Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH DISTRICT REGISTRAR-CUM-COLLECTOR (STAMPS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the application filed by Ambuja Cement Eastern Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, order of amalgamation was passed by this Court in Company Application No.2/2006 on 13-11-2006 and in order to transfer the property and lease, an instrument was sought to be executed and assets and liabilities were amalgamated in favour of the petitioner Company i.e. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited. Thereafter, the petitioner Company made an application under Sec. 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 before the District Registrar, Collector of Stamps for adjudication as to proper stamp duty in respect of the order of amalgamation passed by this Court and the petitioner Company also placed before the authority, the valuation of land, building and machinery after getting it valued by M/s. Sekhri Valuers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. Thereafter, the Collector of Stamps carried out spot inspection on 25-12-2007 and further inspection was made on 10- 1-2008 and thereafter, order dated 1-2-2008 was passed determining additional stamp duty to the extent of 10 crores under the provisions of Schedule 1A, Art. 23A, which was challenged by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue. By the impugned order, the Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Board of Revenue, this instant petition has been filed.

(2.) Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the learned Collector of Stamps on 10- 1-2008 conduced further inspection of the petitioner Company and thereafter, called the report unilaterally from the Deputy Registrar, Bhatapara-Baloda Bazaar and on the basis of said report, straightway, order determining additional stamp duty to the extent of 10 crores was passed on 1-2-2008. The petitioner was neither afforded opportunity to file affidavit nor allowed to adduce evidence in terms of Sec. 31(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and even copy of report submitted by the Deputy Registrar was not furnished to the petitioner which has caused serious prejudice, as the order passed by the Collector of Stamps is in teeth of the principles of natural justice and the material which has never been supplied to the petitioner, was relied upon by the learned Collector of Stamps, which was affirmed by the Board of Revenue without due application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Mr. Shrivastava further submits that during the pendency of writ petition, under protest, an amount of 8,59,92,036.00 has been paid by the petitioner Company.

(3.) Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No.1, on the other hand, would support the impugned order and would submit that the Collector of Stamps is not obliged to give opportunity of hearing, as the word "may" used is directory in nature, therefore, the Collector of Stamps is justified in determining stamp duty to the extent of 10 crores which has rightly been upheld by the revisional Court, as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with cost(s).