VINIDBHAI BALASHANKAR RAVAL Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Sunit Shah learned government Pleader appearing with Ms. Bhavika Kotecha learned Asst. Government pleader, waives service of notice of rule for the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3.

(2.) WITH the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard.

(3.) THE short fact of the case appears to be that the petitioner purchased one property, and the document was presented for registration on 4. 7. 2000. As the document was not properly stamped, as per the Sub-register, the matter was referred to the Deputy Collector, under the Bombay stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') read with the Bombay Stamp (Determination of market value of the property) Rules 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules' ). It appears that the notice was issued, whereas the contention of the petitioner is that the notice was not received by him, therefore, the reply could not be submitted. Ultimately, the Deputy Collector passed the order on 22. 12. 2003, and assessed the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 73,120/- plus penalty of Rs. 250, total Rs. 73,370/ -. As per the respondent the order was communicated, however, the case of the petitioner was that it was not communicated well in time. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the deputy Collector before the competent authority, namely Chief Controller of revenue Authority- respondent No. 2 herein by depositing 25 percent of the amount of the assessed stamp duty. The said appeal has been rejected by the respondent No. 2, vide order dated 7. 4. 2006, on the ground that the appeal was presented beyond the period of limitation. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by preferring present petition.