KESHUBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Jaswant K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondents in each petition. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petitions are being heard and decided finally.

(2.) The challenge in this group of petitions preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 09.03.2011, passed by Respondent No. 2 - Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Assessment Department (?the Deputy Collector? for short) under the provisions of Section 39(1)(b) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (?the Act? for short) whereby, the Petitioner has been called upon to pay Rs. 1,54,840/- as additional stamp duty and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/-. The Petitioner in this group of petitions is the same and similar orders of the Deputy Collector have been challenged in all the petitions, that have been filed in respect of 12 Sale Deeds for different parcels of land purchased by the Petitioner. As identical issues of facts and law arise in these petitions, they are being heard together and decided by a common judgment. For the sake of brevity, the facts, as obtaining in Special Civil Application No. 7422 of 2011 shall be referred to, which are as follows:

(3.) Immovable property bearing part of Survey No. 423 situated at Katargam, District: Surat, was owned by Harivadanbhai Bachkaniwala, Manharlal Ratilal Bachkaniwala and others. Twelve Agreements to Sell were executed by the original owners of the land in favour of the Petitioner on 26.11.2002. On payment of the amount of consideration by the Petitioner to the original owners, twelve Sale Deeds were executed on 16.01.2003, through their Power of Attorney. The Petitioner filed the necessary Form envisaged under the provisions of Section 32A of the Act, on 16.01.2003. The Petitioner was served with a notice intimating him that he was required to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs. 1,12,840/-. The Petitioner paid the amount of deficit stamp duty on 22.01.2003. The Sale Deed was registered on 22.01.2003, mentioning the fact that the deficit stamp duty had been paid by the Petitioner, and the duly registered instrument was handed over to the Petitioner. However, after a period of seven years and ten months, the Deputy Collector issued notice dated 24.11.2010 to the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 39(1)(b) of the Act, calling upon him to remain present on 08.12.2010. The said notice referred to an earlier notice dated 17.09.2010, which, according to the Petitioner, was not received by him. Upon receipt of the notice dated 24.11.2010, the Petitioner inquired from the Deputy Collector why the notice was issued since, according to him, the said notice did not contain any details regarding the specific purpose justifying its issuance. The Petitioner filed a detailed reply to the said notice requesting the concerned Respondent to provide material, documents and the report on the basis of which action was proposed to be taken, and to afford the Petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity of representing his case. The grievance of the Petitioner is that, without providing any material on which action was proposed to be taken, and without affording an opportunity of hearing, the Deputy Collector has passed order dated 09.03.2011, in exercise of powers under Section 39(1)(b) of the Act, directing the Petitioner to pay additional stamp duty as indicated hereinabove. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances.