CHANDRAKANT C ADESARA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application the petitioners have challenged Rule 6 of the Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Under-valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1995 as ultravires the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and also ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A further prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 5-10-1996 issued by the District Sub-Registrar, Jamshedpur whereby the petitioner was directed to pay stamp fee amounting to Rs.1,86,538/- and Registration fee Rs. 46,734 / - in respect of the sale deed executed on 22-6-1993 in favour of the petitioners.

(2.) The brief facts of the case which gave rise to filing of this writ application are as follows :One M/s. Mithila Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Director, Dinesh B. Parikh had purchased a building being Holding No. 20 at Contractor's Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur by sale deed dated 23-3-1975 for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. It is submitted that M/s. Mithila Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. got the valuation of the said structure from a registered valuer, the Managing Director of M/s. Mithila Motors applied for no objection certificate from the office of the Income-tax Department, Jamshedpur for selling the property. Income-tax Department gave no objection certificate on 3-6-1993 under S. 239(A)( 1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and thereafter the said M/s. Mithila Motors in their meeting dated 29-5-1993 resolved to sell the said building to increase the capital of the petitioner. Accordingly a sale deed was executed on 22-6l993 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said holding for a consideration of Rs. 9,42,000. A copy of the sale deed is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application. The petitioner's further case is that one Shri Nagin B. Parikh, Managing Director of Mithila Motors and elder brother of Shri Bipin B. Parikh by their letter dated 22-3-1994 said that valuation given in the sale deed dated 22-6-1993 is far below the prevailing market price and he is ready to purchase it at a price of 18 lakhs. According to the petitioner in respect of the same building, there was serious dispute between Bipin B. Parikh and Nagin B. Parikh and a proceeding under S. 107, Cr. P.C. was initiated at the instance of Nagin B. Parikh. It appears that on receipt of the said information a notice/ letter was issued by District Sub-Registrar on 23-8-1996 asking Bipin B. Parikh to deposit stamp fee amounting to Rs. 3,06,000 /- and registration fee Rs. 75,600 /-. On receipt of the said letter, Bipin B. Parikh informed the District SubRegistrar that the building in question was constructed in the year 1938 and the market valuation of the building cannot and shall not be Rs. 1,80,000/-. The petitioner's further case was that on receipt of the aforesaid letter, all of a sudden the petitioner received a letter from the office of the District Sub-Registrar, Jamshedpur vide letter dt. 23-9-1996 whereby the petitioner's advocate was informed to remain present along with relevant documents on 24-9-1996. The petitioner's contention is that no inquiry was ever made either by the Deputy Commissioner or by the Registrar inquestion of valuation of the building but a notice dated 5-10-1996 was served upon the petitioner directing him to deposit stamp fee amounting to Rs. 1,86,538 / - and registration fee amounting to Rs. 46,734 /- otherwise legal action would be taken against them. A copy of the said impugned notice is Annexure-9 to the writ application.

(3.) It appears that after filing of the writ petition, a notice dated 26-12-1996 was served on the petitioner by the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner intimating the petitioner that the document has been impounded under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act and he has been asked to file show cause as to why the valuation of the property should not be determined in exercise of power under Section 40 of the said Act. The petitioner has challenged this notice which is Annexure-10 to the writ petition.