UNIVERSAL FERROAND ALLIED CHEMICALS LIMITED Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 09.09.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority-respondent No. 1 in proceedings under Section 32B of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1948 (for short the said Act) By aforesaid order the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be partly allowed but the petitioner was directed to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs. 11,64,180/-.

(2.) The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. On 27.03.1981 a Deed of Conveyance was entered into between Uniferro International Limited and the petitioner company. As per aforesaid deed, various lands mentioned in Schedule to said deed of conveyance were transferred by way of sale to the petitioner company. In the deed of conveyance it was mentioned that the vendors- Uniferro International Limited had created a mortgage/charge on the lands described in First Schedule in favour of various nationalised banks. The said deed of conveyance was duly registered on 30.03.1981. The value of the properties that where subject matter of said deed of conveyance was shown to be Rs. 68,40,328.16. On 03.07.1985 a notice was issued by the Collector of Stamps, Bhandara to the vendors in which it was stated that there was deficit stamp duty for amount of Rs.11,63,580/- in relation to the aforesaid deed of conveyance. Thereafter, on 15.07.1985 another notice was issued in which it was stated that the instrument in question was chargeable with duty under Section 25 of the said Act. It was stated that the party should appear before the Collector of Stamps Bhandara in that regard. The vendor replied to aforesaid notice by communication dated 23.08.1985 and pointed out that provisions of Section 25 of the said Act were not attracted to the facts of the case as the properties in question were not transferred to a mortgagee. An additional reply dated 10.10.1985 was also submitted to the Collector of Stamps, Bhandara giving various details to demonstrate that liability under Section 25 of the said Act was not attracted.

(3.) It appears that there after on 14.03.1989 the Collector of Stamps, Bhandara issued a communication to the petitioner calling upon it to furnish copies of its balance sheets for the years 1980-81 to 1984-85. On 14.03.1989, a notice was issued to the petitioner-Company as regards hearing of the proceedings on 27.03.1989. Hearing as scheduled did not take place on said date. On 05.02.1992 another notice was issued by the Collector of Stamps to the petitioner stating therein that in the Local Audit Report for the year 1982, it was noticed that the deed of conveyance executed on 27.03.1981 had been deficiently stamped. The petitioner was therefore again called upon to submit its say in the matter. Reply thereto was submitted on 18.02.1992. It appears that without adjudicating the issue, the Collector of Stamps had made a demand for a sum of Rs. 11,63,580/- from the petitioner. The aforesaid action was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition no. 3188 of 1995. By judgment dated 09.02.1998, the demand notices were set aside and the Collector of Stamps was directed to proceed on the basis of show cause notice dated 05.02.1992.