FARIDA ABUBAKAR MEMON Vs. COLLECTOR OF STAMPS (ENFORCEMENTII)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners question the following:

(2.) As noted above, the Additional Controller of Stamps, Mumbai, in appeal under section 32B of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (said Act), has in fact set aside the order dated 26 October 2007 passed by the Collector Stamp Duty (EnforcementII), Mumbai and reduced the deficit stamp duty and penalty to Rs.5,90,500/, after taking into consideration the stamp duty already paid by the predecessor in title of the petitioners. There is a merger of the order dated 26 October 2007 with the judgment and order dated 31 March 2008. In effect therefore, the challenge in this petition is against the judgment and order dated 31 March 2008 passed by the Additional Controller of Stamps, Mumbai. The same shall hereinafter be referred to as the impugned judgment and order.

(3.) The predecessor in title of the petitioners vide Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 26 September 1996 agreed to purchase the immovable property, known as 'Madina Mansion', bearing CTS No.1/1125 at Mahim (said property) for consideration of Rs.22,00,000/. Clauses 3 and 4 of MOU, however record that the entire consideration has been paid and the vendor has handed over the possession of the said property to the purchaser. This MOU was executed on stamp paper of Rs.20/. At the relevant time, i.e., in year 1996, had the MOU been treated as conveyance in terms of Article 25 of the 1st Schedule to the said Act, the stamp duty payable thereon would be in the range of 10% ad valorem, which would correspond to approximately Rs.2,20,000/.