DEENANATH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri P.C. Chandil, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved by demand notice, Annexure P/1, issued by the Additional Tahsildar and District Registrar, Distt. Morena, whereby a demand of Rs.1,23,650/- has been raised on the petitioner.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that Collector of Stamps was required to adjudicate on the issue of payment of stamp duty and penalty and before assessing the same, he was required to give an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties inasmuch as the language of Section 40(3) of the Stamp Act is unambiguous and provides that where an instruction has been sent to the Collector under Section 38 sub-section (2), the Collector shall, when he has dealt with it as provided by the section, return it to the impounding officer. Therefore, Collector is obliged to give an opportunity of hearing before determining the amount of stamp duty and penalty to the concerned parties, but admittedly this opportunity of hearing was not afforded by the Collector of Stamps as has been admitted by the State in its return also, therefore, the impugned demand notice is quashed. Matter is remitted back to the Collector of Stamps, Morena, to given an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and pass a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order which the petitioner shall be obliged to submit within seven days from today.