JAYANTILAL BABULAL TATED Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the order dated 27.9.2012 (Annexure-K) passed by the respondent No.4 Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Division-1, Ahmedabad under Section 32A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act) and the order dated 9.10.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Annexure-M) dismissing the appeal on the ground of having been filed after the prescribed period of limitation under Section 53(1) of the said Act.

(2.) It has been alleged inter alia that the conveyance deed in question was registered with the office of Sub-Registrar at No.2362 on 10th October, 1994 in respect of which notices under Section 32A were issued by the Deputy Collector, however, in similar cases, the High Court had set aside such notices and directed the respondent authorities to return the sale deed. According to the petitioners, impugned notices could not have been issued under Section 32A(4) of the said Act after the period of six years of registration, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector was without jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the respondent No.2 was also wrongly rejected on the ground of delay as the petitioners were not aware about the order passed by the Deputy Collector and came to know only on 9.7.2015.

(3.) The petition has been resisted by the respondent No.3 by filing the affidavit-in-reply contending inter alia that earlier the notices were issued to the petitioners on 1.10.2001 and on 12.2.2004 by the respondent No.4 exercising powers under Section 32A(1) of the said Act, however, in view of the circular dated 10.5.2011 of the Superintendent of Stamps (Gujarat State) fresh notices were issued to the petitioners. However, the petitioners did not remain present. It has been contended that though the petitioners were given opportunity to remain present before the respondent No.4, they neither remained present, nor made any representation, and therefore, the respondent No.4 had passed the order directing them to pay the deficit stamp duty. The appeal filed by the petitioners after a period prescribed under Section 53 was not maintainable, and therefore, the same was dismissed by the respondent No.2. It is also contended that the notices under the Land Revenue Code were also issued for the recovery of the deficit stamp duty and hence, the petition be dismissed.