JUDGMENT :

Anuja Prabhudessai, J.

Rule. With consent, rule made returnable forthwith.

2. In this Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs :-

"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records and proceedings relating to the impugned order dated 25th January 2018 (Ex O hereto) read with the Interim demand letter dated 7th April 2016 (Ex M hereto) and after examining the validity legality and propriety thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the same.

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring / directing :-

(i) that vide letter dated 19th March 1997, the adjudication of stamp duty on the order of amalgamation is complete, valid and binding under Section 31 of the Act.

(ii) that apart from amount of Rs.23,25,66,519/- already paid by the Petitioner pursuant to the demand letter dated 19th March 1997, no further stamp duty is payable on the order of amalgamation;

and;

(iii) the Respondent No.1 and its subordinates to forthwith withdraw and cancel the Impugned Order as well as the demand for the stamp duty of the amount specified in the said Impugned Order;

(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondent No.2 to issue a certificate of endorsement on the order of amalgamation under Section 32 of the Act, in pursuance of the adjudication done on 19th March 1997 under Section 31 of the Act; and handover the duly endorsed instrument to the Petitioner."

3. The relevant facts necessary to decide this petition are as under: A scheme of amalgamation of Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited as a Transferor Company (BBLIL) with the Petitioner- Hindustan Unilever Limited as a Transferee Company (HUL) was sanctioned by this Court vide order dated 23rd August, 1996 in Company Petition No.343 of 1996.

4. Since the Transferor Company-(BBLIL) has its registered office at Calcutta, a separate Company Petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and the same was allowed by order dated 09/12/1996. By the said order, it was held that the properties of the Transferor Company listed in Schedule B of the scheme viz. (i) freehold properties, (ii) leasehold properties and (iii) all shares, debentures and other charges would be transferred and vested in the Transferee Company-(HUL) from the date of transfer.

5. By letter dated 19th March, 1997, the Petitioner Company (HUL) submitted orders of amalgamation dated 23/08/1997 and 13/03/1997 before the Respondent no.2 - the Collector of Stamps, Mumbai for adjudication as to proper stamp duty under section 31 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as the Stamp Act). Relying upon the notification dated 18th March, 1997, the petitioner stated that the value of the shares which were to be allotted to the shareholders of BBLIL under the scheme was Rs.3322,37,88,448/- and as such the duty payable there on at 0.7% worked out to Rs.23,25,66,519/-. The petitioner claimed that valuation of the immovable properties of the BBLIL was substantially lower than the value of the shares and as such the stamp duty was payable only on the market value of the shares to be issued and allotted under the scheme. The Petitioner-Company submitted a certificate from the Chartered Accountant and certificate issued by the BSE confirming the market price of the shares.

6. The petitioner claims that the Competent Authority under the Act duly adjudicated proper and correct stamp duty payable on the said instrument i.e., the amalgamation order. By letter dated 19th March, 1997, the office of the Respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that an amount of Rs.23,25,66,519/- was payable towards stamp duty on the order sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation and issued a demand upon the Petit