The court determined that proceedings to recover deficit stamp duty must be concluded within six years from the original adjudication date, emphasizing timely resolution in revenue matters.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. This petition challenges an order dated 14 August 2012 passed by respondent no.2 under Section 53A of the Bombay/Maharashtra STAMP ACT , 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ STAMP ACT ’) whereby a sum of Rs.8,21,000/- is demanded on account of deficit stamp duty on the instrument dated 15 December 2003. The petition also challenges order dated 21 August 2015 passed by respondent no.2 pursuant to the directions given by this Court.

2. In the impugned order dated 14 August 2012, reference was made to an audit report and the valuation report sought by respondent no.2 from the Joint Director, Town Planning, Valuation without the copy of the same being given to the petitioner. Therefore, vide order of this Court dated 15 April 2015, the respondents were directed to give a copy of the valuation report and after hearing, the petitioner were directed to pass appropriate orders. Pursuant thereto, respondent no.2 vide his order dated 21 August 2015 passed the order confirming his earlier order dated 14 August 2012 and the said order is also a subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

Brief Facts :-

3. On 2 December 2003, pursuant to the petitioner lodging agreement for sale for adjudication, a certificate under Section 32(1)(b) of the STAMP ACT was issued accepting the valuation specified in the agreement and determining stamp duty of Rs.16,59,950/- under Article 25(b) of the Schedule to the STAMP ACT .

4. On 12 December 2003, the petitioner executed the aforesaid agreement for sale with a Developer to purchase ground floor, basement and first floor of an immovable property which was described as ‘office premises’ in the agreement for a consideration of Rs.1,65,97,620/-.

5. The aforesaid certificate under Section 32(1)(b) further states that same is subject to the provisions of Section 53A of the STAMP ACT . The petitioner paid an amount of Rs.16,59,950/- as stamp duty.

6. On 2 March 2007 and 29 December 2007, a notice was issued by respondent no.2 under Section 53A of the STAMP ACT with respect to the valuation and the payment of stamp duty on the above instrument. The said notice was made returnable on 12 March 2007 and 7 January 2008, respectively.

7. On 14 November 2011, a notice to show cause was issued by respondent no.2 to the petitioner for payment of differential stamp duty. The said notice was issued under Section 53A of the STAMP ACT . Similar notice was also issued on 29 November 2011 and made returnable on 12 December 2011.

8. On 29 February 2012, respondent no.2 issued a notice to the petitioner requesting to attend the office of respondent no.2. The said notice was issued under Section 53A of the STAMP ACT . On 30 March 2012, the respondents issued a differential demand notice of Rs.12,06,050/- to the petitioner and the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing on 9 April 2012.

9. On 9 July 2012, a letter was addressed by Assistant Director Town Planning Valuation, Government of Maharashtra to the legal advisor of the Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps regarding valuation of the above document. As per the said letter and according to the valua