BHARAT BIJLEE LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner company is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10th August 1998 passed by the Superintendent of Stamps, Mumbai impounding the instrument submitted by it on the ground that it was not duly stamped and the petitioner was ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 8,16,000/-leviable as stamp duty on the instrument under question. The authority had also directed the petitioner to pay penalty specified in the order. Further threat was also issued to the petitioner that on their failing to pay the said amount with penalty, the same would be recovered as arrears of land revenue under section 46 of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958.

(2.) THE facts in the present case are in a very narrow compass. The petitioner company purchased the immovable property described in the petition at the auction purchase price of Rs. 17,75,000/ -. The office of the Tax Recovery, ward No. 22 had also issued an order of confirmation of auction sale of the said property certifying that the aforesaid immovable property was auctioned on 26th December 1996 in execution of certificate No. 673 to 676 A/92-93 dated 28th December 1992. It was further certified that the full amount of purchase money was paid on 9th January 1997. It was also stated in the said certificate that an application under Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act by the defaulter Shri Parekh for setting aside the sale was disallowed. By the said certificate the sale was confirmed in favour of the present petitioners. It appears that by its letter dated 31 st July 1997, caused through the attorneys, the collector of Stamps was informed by the petitioner about the certificate of sale dated 6th May 1997 granted by the Tax Recovery Officer for the purpose of payment of stamp duty. The said authority was requested to make assessment of stamp duty payable. An adjudication fee of Rs. 50/- was also remitted. It appears that the petitioners were the tenants of the premises which was auctioned for recovery of tax and was finally purchased by petitioner as tenants. It further appears that the authority had required the petitioner to furnish a copy of the agreement dated 29th December 1978, though not relevant for the purpose but the Petitioner furnished that also not to give any scope to the Authority to find fault with the Petitioner. Even then, it appears, that by the impugned order, the Superintendent of Stamps had passed the aforesaid order without hearing the petitioner without disclosing its reason for dissatisfaction.

(3.) SHRI Seervai, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently attacked the impugned order being totally illegal and malafide. Shri Seervai submitted that the petitioners were liable to pay the stamp duty on the basis of the sale certificate issued by the income tax office which certainly reflects the correct market value of the property sold in auction by the income tax authorities for recovery of the tax from the owner of the property. Shri Seervai submitted that the stamp authorities had no business and no authority to go behind and beyond the said certificate. He further submitted that the stamp authority cannot sit in appeal over the said sale certificate issued by the competent authority under the Income Tax Act certifying the true value of the property. Shri Seervai further submitted that proviso to Rule 4 (6) of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995 is absolutely clear in respect of the market value of the property. It would be convenient to reproduce the entire rule with the proviso as under:-