V CHOCKALINGAM Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN respect of a sale deed obtained by the petitioner on 13.6.2002, which was registered under the 2nd respondent Sub Registrar, the document was withheld on alleged under valuation of stamp duty. On filing of a Writ Petition in W.P.No.29348 of 2002 by the petitioner, as per the order dated 26.12.2002, the document was released in January 2003. Thereafter, the impugned Notice dated 27.1.2003 in Form II under the INdian Stamp Act has been issued to the petitioner. This Court by an order dated 6.2.2003 has granted order of Stay. The said Form II is challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition on various grounds including that the Form II has not been preceded with mandatory requirement of Form I and as held by this Court in 2008-3-Law Weekly 286, Tata Coffee Limited vs. The State of Tamilnadu by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu and others, the entire procedure followed is null and void.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that Form I Notice has in fact been served by ordinary post. The learned Additional Government Pleader has produced the entire files and this Court also perused the same. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that Form I is said to have been sent and it is not known under what mode the same was sent.

(3.) I had an occasion to consider the mandatory requirement of Form I in Tata Coffee Limited vs. The State of Tamilnadu by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2008-3-Law Weekly 286, wherein after elaborately considering the implication of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act in respect of the mandatory requirement of the various Forms to be followed, it was held as follows: