( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated. 4. 7. 2002 passed by the Kamataka Appellate Tribunal by which the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners which was filed under section 46-A (3) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short) and also the order dated. 20. 6. 2001 passed by respondent No. 3 namely the Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and Registration, Tumkur District directing the petitioners to pay stamp duty and registration fee of Rs. 1,46,174/- in respect of the sale deed dated 13. 2. 1997 executed in their favour.

( 2 ) THE facts essential for disposal of this writ petition areas follows: the petitioners purchased a certain property as per the sale deed dated. 13. 2. 1997 produced as Annexure-B. The said deed was presented for registration before the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar impounded the said document u/s 33 (1) of the Act on the ground that the instrument was not duly stamped. Accordingly, he sent it to the Deputy Commissioner as provided under Sec. 37 (2) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner examined the document and was of opinion that the document was not chargeable with duty as per government order dated 28. 9. 1994 and accordingly certified to the said effect in exercise of his power under section 39 (1) (a) of the Act as per his order dated 16. 4. 97 produced as Annexure 'c'. Subsequently, the staff of the Accountant General during the course of their inspection found that the document in question was not duly stamped. Following the said finding, the Deputy Commissioner initiated a proceeding under section 46a of the Act and ultimately by his order dated 20. 6. 2001 which is produced as Annexure F directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 1,46,174/- as duty on the aforesaid instrument of sale. Against the said order, the petitioners presented an appeal in Appeal No. 484/2001 under section 46a (3) of the Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the said appeal by its order dated 4. 7. 2002 produced as Annexure H. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, the petitioners have presented this writ petition.

( 3 ) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

( 4 ) THE sole contention urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the order dated 20. 6. 2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is wholly with our jurisdiction. He submitted that in view of the order dated 16. 4. 97 passed by him in exercise of the power under section 39 (1) (a) of the Act to the effect that the document was not chargeable with duty, it was not open to the Deputy Commissioner in law to exercise the power under section 46a of the Act to review or redetermine the issue already decided in exercise of the power u/s 39 (1) (a ). He relied on section 39 (2) of the Act in support of his contention. He also submitted that this aspect is not properly considered by the tribunal.

( 5 ) LEARNED Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the impugned order-Annexure F was passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the power under section 46a of the Act and hence cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. He further submitted that the impugned orders do not suffer any legal infirmity to wan-ant interference by this court.

( 6 ) IN the light of the above rival contentions, the only question that falls for determination is as to whether the Deputy Commissioner had power to pass the order dated 20. 6. 2001, which is produced as Annexure-F?

( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that respondent No. 3-Deputy Commissioner had passed the order dated. 16. 4. 1997 as per Annexure-C to the effect that the document was not chargeable with duty by relying on a government order dated 28. 9. 94. This order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the power conferred on him under section 39 (1) (a) of the Act. The question is as to whether the Deputy Commissioner can again