MAHESH CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. REGISTRAR KATNI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy involved in this petition is with respect to the demand of payment of stamp duty, so issued by the Collector (Stamp) Jabalpur, vide order dated 17.9.1998 and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur on 22.2.1999, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. In short, the facts giving rise to such controversy are that the original petitioner Mahesh Chandra Gupta purchased the disputed property from one Smt. Khurshid M. Dubash, for a consideration of Rs.25 lacs and a sale deed was got executed in this respect.

(2.) This Court has entertained the writ petition on 10.3.1999 and while issuing the notices to the respondents has directed that in case the petitioner deposits the stamp duty of Rs.2,81,875/-, no coercive steps shall be taken for the recovery of amount of penalty.

(3.) In response to the notice issued by this Court of this writ petition, a return has been filed by the respondents. It is contended by the respondents that the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that no appeal would lie against the order of the Collector (Stamp) before Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur and in fact, appropriate appeal was never filed by the petitioner. It is contended that on a deficit stamp, the document was presented for registration. The said document was not registered only because the appropriate stamp duty was not paid. In fact, a stamp duty of Rs.3,21,875/- was required to be paid on the basis of the face value of the property so mentioned in the sale deed. Thus, there was a deficit payment of stamp duty amounting to Rs.2,81,875/-. The matter was referred to the higher authorities, in exercise of power under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity). In terms of the provisions of Section 38(2) of the Act, the Collector (Stamp) was required to examine the same. The case was, thus, registered, opportunity of hearing was given to the original petitioner, but even after representation before the competent authority, it was expressed by the original petitioner that he was unable to deposit the deficit stamp duty. Time as requested was granted for the said purposes, but instead of depositing the said amount, a reply of show cause was filed which was rejected and the order impugned was passed on 17.9.1998 demanding payment of deficit stamp duty with penalty. The Collector was right in holding that since there was deficit payment of stamp duty, the petitioner was liable to pay a penalty as per the provisions of Section 40 of the Act, which could be ten times of the deficit stamp duty. This order was challenged in appeal, but the same was rightly dismissed by the Additional Commissioner as the appeal was required to be filed before the Board of Revenue. This being so, there was no case made out to interfere in the order impugned. It is contended that since the deficit stamp duty was to be recovered under Section 38(2) of the Act, the Collector has rightly proceeded under the provisions of Section 40 of the Act for recovery of deficit stamp duty with the penalty. Thus, it is contended that the petition being wholly misconceived, the same is liable to be dismissed.