A show-cause notice issued without jurisdiction, particularly regarding unregistered documents, is invalid and may be challenged to prevent unwarranted legal action.

JUDGMENT :

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J :

The appellant herein which is a Public Sector Corporation involved in Fabrication, Erection and Operation of various machines had entered into an agreement with M/s. NREDCAP for installation of wind tools for generation of electricity.

2. The appellant had received a notice dated 05.06.2015 under Section 41-A of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 from the 2nd respondent herein. In this notice, the 2nd respondent, on the basis of information supplied by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Anantapuram had stated that the appellant, was involved in execution of a project, worth of Rs.1,500/- crores, under an agreement executed between the appellant and M/s. NREDCAP. The 2nd respondent, after stating the above facts, estimated that the unregistered agreement should have been stamped with Rs.75/- lakhs and as such stamp duty had not been paid, called upon the appellant to either pay the said amount or to put forth its objections in writing.

3. The appellant being aggrieved by show-cause, approached this Court by way of WP No.20420 of 2015 challenging the said show-cause notice, on the ground that the said show-cause notice is without jurisdiction null and void and without authority as well as being ultra virus provisions of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899.

4. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 02.01.2023 on the ground that the appellant could approach the 2nd respondent and put forth its objections inasmuch as a writ petition against show-cause notice need not be entertained by this Court exercising its discretionary jurisdiction.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed.

6. Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant raises the following grounds of appeal :

(A) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Paras 7, 14, 15 and 21), had held that there could be a challenge to a show-cause notice also if it could be demonstrated that the said show-cause notice is without jurisdiction. Sri P. Roy Reddy would contend that the learned Single Judge had erred in dismissing the writ petition without considering the question of whether jurisdiction had been made out or not.

(B) On the merits of the case, Sri P. Roy Reddy raises five grounds :

(i) The Vigilance and Enforcement Department is not part of the Registrar of Stamps and has no jurisdiction or authority either inspect any premises or to direct the authorities under the STAMP ACT to levy penalties or collect stamp duty. He contends that the Vigilance and Enforcement Department had been constituted under G.O. Ms. No.268 dated 11.06.1985 and further powers had been given to the Vigilance Department by way of G.O. Ms. No.504 dated 25.11.1997. He contends that these are at best executive instructions, issued by exercising the executive power of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Sri P. Roy Reddy contends that such executive power is not available in view of the fact that Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 already occupies a field and no executive instructions de hors the provision of the Indian STAMP ACT can be issued.

(ii) Even assuming that the Vigilance and Enforcement Department has authority under the STAMP ACT , the same would not extend to undertake the exercise take