GANGOTRI INORGANIC PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Siraj Gori waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.1. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India Mr. Malkan waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no. 2. The present petition has been preferred against the communication dated 30.7.2002, order dated 12.8.2004 and the notice dated 26th December, 2005 (Annexures "C", "D" and "E" respectively to the memo of the petition).

(2.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner mainly submitted that no notice has ever been issued by the respondent no.1 authority before passing the final order of payment of stamp duty of Rs. 8,10,000/- as referred to in the order dated 12.8.2004 (Annexure "D") impugned notice at Annexure "E" to the memo of the petition. Thus, no opportunity of being heard has been afforded to the petitioner for fixing the payment of stamp duty by the respsondents. It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the audit report can be the basis of issuance of notice under Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, but the Mamlatdar, Talod cannot issue final order of payment of Rs. 8,10,000/- on the basis of the audit report. Under the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, especially under section 32 of the Act of 1958, necessary notices have not been issued to the petitioner for the payment of the stamp duty for the registration of the document which is at annexure "A" to the memo of the petition. The said document is dated 25th May, 2000. After registration of the sale deed, no notice has ever been issued under the Act of 1958, much less under section 32 of the Act of 1958 and therefore, the direction for payment of Rs. 8,10,000/- by the impugned letter dated 12.8.2004(Annexure "D") and dated 26th December, 2005, by the Mamlatdar, Talod (at Annexure "E" to the memo of the petition) deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that during pendency of the present petition, a notice has been issued by the Deputy Collector, Stamp duty, Sabarkantha on 17th January, 2006 under section 39(1)(B) of the Act of 1958 for an amount of Rs. 24,750/-. It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner as per the notice dated 17.1.2006 issued by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty, which is at page no. 62 of the petition, the issue is yet to be adjudicated upon by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty, Sabarkantha. Thus, so long as the notice under the Act of 1958 is pending, the impugned notice dated 26th December, 2005, given by the Mamlatdar, Talod for payment of Rs. 8,10,000/- towards stamp duty deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) I have also heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Gori on behalf of respondent no.1, who has submitted that the notice dated 26th December, 2005 issued by the Mamlatdar, Talod is on the basis of the audit report given by the auditor. The petitioner has not paid the correct stamp duty for the registration of the document. In pursuance of the audit report, the notice has been issued under section 152 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and therefore, the petition may not be entertained by this Court.