TORRENT POWER LIMITED Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 03.01.1994 issued by the respondent No.2 as also the order dated 21.12.2013 passed by respondent No.1 for recovering of deficit stamp duty and the registration fee with the penalty being Rs.37,88,400/, Rs.6,76,575/, Rs.250/respectively, total of which comes to Rs.44,65,225/, from the petitioner.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a small piece of non agricultural land, admeasuring 710.19 sq.mtrs. from one Bileshwar Industrial Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of Rs.13,77,600/and paid Rs.82,000/as Stamp Duty with necessary registration fees at the time of registration of sale deed on 09.10.2006. Now after a period of 7 years, when the petitioner received a notice dated 03.01.2014 from the respondent No.2 for deficit registration fee of Rs.6,76,575/, on inquiry it could know that an order dated 21.12.2013 for recovery of the above referred amounts was passed. The petitioner has averred that the sale deed of the petitioner was released after it was duly registered. It is the case of the petitioner that the order passed by the respondent No.1 is simply on the basis of an audit objection from the office of the Accountant General and there is no independent assessment of stamp duty done by the authority under the Act. The vendor i.e. Bileshwar Industrial Estate Developers Private Limited from whom the petitioner purchased small piece of land faced action initiated by the respondents for recovery of the deficit stamp duty and registration fee. Such action was challenged by the vendor of the petitioner by preferring Special Civil Application No.11476 of 2012, which was rejected, but the Letters Patent Appeal No.1332 of 2012 preferred against the decision in the said petition was allowed and the show cause notice issued by the Deputy Collector was quashed. The vendor was again issued show cause notice dated 13.12.2013 under Section 39(1)(b) of the Act. The vendor has again preferred Special Civil Application No.18597 of 2013. During pendency of such petition, the petitioner is issued the notice of demand by the respondent No.2 and the order by the respondent No.1 for recovery of the deficit stamp duty. The petitioner has taken the contention that since, the very same demand has been raised against the vendor of the petitioner, it was not open to ask the petitioner to satisfy such demand.

(3.) NO reply to the petition is filed.