BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LIMITED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. transferred its factory and other properties situated in the District of Udaipur to M/s. JK Udaipur Udyog Ltd. in the year 1993. M/s. JK Udaipur Udyog the transferee-Company submitted an application u/S. 31 of the Stamp Act before the Collector, Stamps, Udaipur along with documents for adjudication of the stamp duty which might be payable for such transfer. The Collector, Stamps on receipt of the application for adjudication made site inspection of the properties on 17-9-1993 and looking to the bulk magnitude of different properties he gave a notice dated 18-9-1993 to M/s. JK Udaipur Udyog Ltd. to submit necessary information for determining the market value of the properties which were transferred under various deeds. M/s. JK Udaipur Udyog Ltd. instead of complying with the requirements of the notice dated 18-9-1993 went on requesting for adjournment of hearing from time to time and finally filed an application dated 3-11-1993 by which the adjudication proceedings were sought to be withdrawn. Thereafter, three documents were presented for registration at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mavli on 1-12-1993 :-

(2.) On receipt of the above documents, the SubRegistrar, Mavli addressed a letter dated 12-1293 to the Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Rajasthan seeking his guidance in determining the market value of the properties as the Sub-Registrar felt that the valuation of the properties involved required technical expertise. It was also stated by the Sub-Registrar that he never had such a case in which the valuation and stamp duty to such a large extent was involved. The Sub-Registrar on 17-12-93 also issued a notice to the parties requiring them to furnish information whether any consideration passed between the parties for transfer of the lease-hold rights. The Sub-Registrar further, issued a notice dated 21-12-93 requiring the parties to furnish certain information as to whether there was any agreement of sale executed between the parties and also asked for the balance-sheet of M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. It was also mentioned that the valuation of the plant and machinery had not been mentioned by any valuer, therefore, itemwise information might be furnished to determine which property would be immovable and which would be treated as movable. The information was required to be furnished by 31-12-1993.

(3.) M/s. JK Udaipur Udyog Ltd. by its letter dated 17-12-93 informed the Sub-Registrar, Mavli that no consideration passed for the transfer of the lease-hold rights and submitted an affidavit in support of its contention.