Back
1997 Supreme(AP) 863
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MOTILAL B.NAIK
Bharatia Pulverisers Private Limited, Adilabad District, A.P., rep.by its Authorised Signatory and Manager Mr.N.Sanjay - Appellant
Versus
Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Asifabad, Adilabad - Respondent
Decided On : 09-10-97
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 47A - Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Act - Sections 29 and 64 – Property Purchased – Public Auction - In this writ petition a mandamus is sought questioning action of respondents in demanding deficit stamp duty by fixing fair market value for property purchased under public auction for a sum as arbitrary and illegal and seeks such other directions deemed fit and proper in circumstances of case - Before adverting to main controversy raised in this writ petition on question as to whether initiation of proceedings by respondents is proper it would be appropriate to appraise facts of present case - Petitioner is a private limited company incorporated and is engaged in business of manufacturing cement - One Cements and chemicals Private Limited had taken term loans by mortgaging title deeds of immovable properties owned and possessed by it particularly land admeasuring - Said property was registered with Sub-Registrar as document – Held, Therefore inclined to hold that parties cannot be driven from pillar to post only to satisfy whims and fancies of authorities and authorities cannot go scot-free with their fanciful actions - Though learned Government Pleader has supported his contentions by referred to decision I am afraid said decision cannot come in way of this Court to grant appropriate relief to petitioner in light of proposition laid down by five-judges of Supreme Court way back in decision cited - Having regard to facts and circumstances of case I am inclined to hold that action of respondents in demanding deficit stamp duty from petitioner by fixing fair market value to property purchased by petitioner is unjustifiable and cannot be sustained - Accordingly I hold that respondents are not entitled to demand deficit stamp duty from petitioner - Further i am inclined to hold that initiation of proceedings by first respondent and referring matter to Collector for determining fair market value is unwarranted unreasonable and uncalled for as in my considered view there is no reason to disbelieve value shown by petitioner in respect of land and building purchased by him in public auction for a sum - Writ petition is allowed.
( 1 ) IN this writ petition a mandamus is sought questioning the action of the respondents in demanding deficit stamp duty of Rs,2,30,000/- by fixing the fair market value of Rs. 20,00,000/- for the property purchased under public auction from the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (APSFC) for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, as arbitrary and illegal and seeks such other directions deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the main controversy raised in this writ petition on the question as to whether initiation of proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short the Act ) by the respondents is proper, it would be appropriate to appraise the facts of the present case.
( 3 ) THE petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing cement. One M/s Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Cements and chemicals Private Limited had taken term loans of Rs. 30. 00 lakhs, Rs. 16. 30 lakhs and Rs. 7. 00 lakhs from the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation by mortgaging title deeds of the immovable properties owned and possessed by it, particularly the land bearing Sy. Nos. 3/a and 4/a, admeasuring Ac. 7,43 cents situated at Kumuguda village, Asifabad Mandal, Adilabad District. The said property was registered with Sub-Registrar, Asifabad, Adilabad District, as document No. 144/1984 dated 4-4-1984.
( 4 ) THE said M/s Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Cements and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. , had defaulted in payment of amounts due to the APSFC according to the agreement, and therefore, the APSFC invoked the powers under section 29 of APSFC Act by putting the properties to public auction by Public notice dated 22-1-1996 published in "the Hindu newspaper. The petitioner also participated in the auction and was successful in getting the unit, being the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 5. 00 lakhs. The land admeasuring ac. 7. 43 cents was transferred in favour of the petitioner free from all encumbrances, liabilities, charges or arrears by way of sale deed dated 21-3-1997.
( 5 ) THE petitioner, no doubt, purchased the plant and machinery also along with the land and building for a consideration of Rs. 20. 00 lakhs. Thus, the items of auction land and building and plant and machinery were purchased by him for an amount of Rs. 25. 00 lakhs. The petitioner, however, obtained sale deed only in respect of the land and building admeasuring an area of ac. 7. 43 cents by a sale deed dated 21-3-1997 which was presented to the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Asifabad, by paying stamp duty of Rs. 55,000/- on the basis of the value at which the Land and Building was purchased The petitioner also paid registration fee of Rs. 2,776/- under receipt No. 319376 dated 21-3-1997.
( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, to his shock and surprise, the first respondent issued notice dated 24-4-1997 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2. 30 lakhs towards deficit stamp duty on the difference of value of Rs. 20. 00 lakhs, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner states that though a detailed reply was sent on 7-5-1997 opposing the demand of additional stamp duty of Rs. 2. 30 lakhs on Rs. 20 00 lakhs over and above the value of Rs. 5. 00 lakhs paid by him for the land and building and requested the first respondent to release the document presented for registration without any hindrance, the first respondent has now proposed to refer the matter to the Collector, Adilabad u/s. 47-A of the Act, which action is assailed in this writ petition.
( 7 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, despite the first respondent receiving the reply, the first respondent failed to release the document No. P1/97 dated 21-3-1997 and, therefore, he has approached this Court seeking an appropriate direction declaring the action of the first respondent in insisting payment of additional stamp duty of
