D. BALAN Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the petitioner's case is as follows:- The properties comprised in T.S. Nos.73/4 and 73/1A, Natham Road, Dindigul were originally vested with M/s. I. Bahrudeen, I.Rafeeq and I.Abdul Salam. The aforesaid three persons constituted a partnership firm under the name and style of Shan Theatre through a partnership deed dated 07.03.1988. Subsequently, the petitioner and eight others were inducted into the said partnership firm as partners through a partnership deed dated 27.03.2003. As per the recitals in the partnership deed, the property bearing No.27 Natham Road, Dindigul, valued at Rs.9 lakhs was shown as the share capital of the said three persons. The petitioner was the Managing Partner of the said Shan Theatre which was subsequently renamed as Vijay Theatre. The aforesaid three persons had relinquished their respective rights in the partnership firm through a retirement deed dated 23.10.2008 by which they had received a sum of Rs.9 lakhs towards their share in the firm. The second respondent by his proceedings dated 08.11.2010 had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.12,75,251.00 towards deficit stamp duty by calculating the market value of the properties situated at Door No.27, Natham Road, Dindigul thereby treating the said document dated 23.10.2008 as a conveyance deed. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Sec. 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 before the first respondent. The said appeal was partly allowed on 10.05.2013 by setting aside the proceedings of the second respondent. However, it was held that the value of the property has to be calculated as eight shares and the value of three shares out of eight shares has to be calculated for the purpose of levying stamp duty under Sec. 55-D of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Pursuant to the order of the first respondent, the second respondent had passed a revised order dated 31.07.2013 whereby the deficit stamp duty was calculated at Rs.6,37,476.00 and deficit registration fee at Rs.70,726.00. Aggrieved against the orders of the first and second respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) Heard Mr. K.S. Shankar Murali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Alagadevan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the release deed enables releasing the rights of the retiring partners in the partnership firm and it should not be considered as a conveyance deed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, out of 12 partners, three partners retired from the said partnership firm after receiving a sum of Rs.9 lakhs and therefore, the appropriate stamp duty payable for the above release deed should only be Rs.72,000.00 along with registration fee of Rs.9,000.00 and therefore, he would submit that the claim of the second respondent towards the deficit stamp duty at Rs.12,75,251.00 is incorrect.