JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :---Both these writ petitions between the same parties raise the identical questions and, therefore, were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2.The first petitioner viz. TTC Limited agreed to purchase two flats viz. flat No. 302 and flat No. 202 in the building known as 'Samudra Mahal situated at Dr. Annie Beasant Road, Worli from the builders of the building by way of two separate agreements dated 27th August 1973. On each of the said agreements stamp duty of Rs. 5/- was paid. The agreements were duly registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances in the year 1973 itself. The possession of the flats were taken by the first petitioner also in the year 1977. It appears that the respondent No. 2 i.e. Dy. Inspector General of Registration and Dy. Controller of Stamps (Enforcement), Bombay by notice dated 30th October, 1994/20th May, 1994 asked the first petitioner to furnish the said agreements since according to him the proper stamp duty payable on the said agreements was not paid. According to respondent No. 2 herein the said agreements were conveyance of the property and stamp duty payable on the said agreements was the stamp duty payable on the market value of the property.

3.On 21-7-1994 reply was sent by the first petitioner to the respondent No. 2. It was replied that notice was misconceived and proper stamp duty was paid on the said agreements. The respondent No. 2, however, repelled the contentions raised by the first petitioner and directed it to pay stamp duty of Rs. 29,750/- treating the market value of the flat No. 302 at Rs. 2,25,000/-. The respondent No. 2 also imposed penalty at Rs. 250/-. With regard to other flat No. 202, the respondent No. 2 similarly directed the first petitioner to pay stamp duty of Rs. 29,750/- treating the market value of flat No. 202 at Rs. 2,25,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 250/- was imposed also regarding flat No. 202. The order dated 4th August, 1994 passed by respondent No. 2 Dy. Inspector General of Registration and Dy. Controller of Stamps (Enforcement), Bombay is impuged in these two writ petitions.

4.Mr. K.A. Setalvad, the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners strenuously contended that the stamp duty has been paid on the agreements dated 27-8-1973 in accordance with law existing at the time of execution of the agreements. He would submit that the amended Item 25 including explanation in Schedule I of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958 which came into effect from 09-12-1985 has no application to the agreements which were executed on 27-8-1973. He thus submitted that the order passed by respondent No. 2 directing the first petitioner to pay additional stamp duty and penalty was absolutely illegal and deserves to be set-aside. In support of his contentions, Mr. Setalvad relied upon the decision of this Court in (Padma Nair, Petitioner v. The Deputy Collector, Valuation and Stamp Duty, and another, respondents)1, A.I.R. 1994(1) Bom.C.R. 298

5.Though the respondents have filed affidavit in reply for contesting the writ petitions, at the time of the hearing of the writ petitions, nobody appeared on behalf of respondents. The crux of reply in the counter-affidavit is that the amendment in Item 25, Schedule I of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958 by way of insertion of explanation in the year 1985 was retrospective in nature and the first petitioner was liable to pay the stamp duty on the agreement as conveyance deed.

6.I have considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the averments made in the writ petition, counter-affidavit filed by respondents, the affidavit in rejoinder filed by the petitioner, the relevant provisions of the Bombay Stamps Act, 1958 and the judgement of this Court in Padma Nair (supra).

7.Both the agreements in dispute were executed on 27th August, 1973. By one agreement the first petitioner agreed to purchase flat No. 302 and by the other agreement the first petitioner agreed to purchase fl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document