VASUNDHRA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is for a direction against the third respondent, the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar, to refund of excess stamp duty of Rs.3,05,407/- collected from the petitioner in respect of sale deed registered on 16.05.2002 as document No.1117/2002 relating to the property situated at Door No.5(old No.3), Balaji Avenue I Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

(2.) The petitioner has purchased the above said property in a public auction conducted by a M/s.Park Town Benefit Fund Limited as a mortgagee exercising powers under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act for a consideration of Rs.45 lakhs as a highest bidder. The Benefit Fund Limited being mortgagee has executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 16.05.2002 which was registered as stated above and the said value has also been approved by the Income-tax Department.

(3.) It is stated that the third respondent has demanded further amount of stamp duty of Rs.4,48,981/- based on the guideline value maintained by him. Ultimately, the petitioner was asked to pay Rs.3,05,407/- on the guideline value while the value for which he has purchased in the open auction was only Rs.45 lakhs for which necessary stamp duty has been paid. It is stated that the petitioner was forced to pay a sum of Rs.3,05,407/- subsequent to the additional demand of Rs.4,48,981/- for the purpose of getting the release of the document. Thereafter, the petitioner has caused a legal notice to the third respondent on 25.07.2002 and filed the present writ petition. The writ petition is filed on the ground that he was the highest bidder in a public auction from the M/s.Park Town Benefit Fund Limited who has brought the property by exercising its power under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 for the value of Rs.45 lakhs. Therefore, the value for the assessment of stamp duty and the application of the guideline value is not proper and that inasmuch as the petitioner has purchased in a public auction, there is no possibility of suppression of value and therefore, the levy of stamp duty, based on the guideline value prescribed by the third respondent registering authority is not valid in law.