V. M. SAHAI, J.

We have heard Mr. M. 1. Hava, learned Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Krina Calla, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.

2. The short question which arises for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Ahmedabad, respondent No.2 herein, has power under Sec. 39(1)(b) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to issue notice on 2/11-4-2012 demanding deficit stamp duty when the deed of sale has been duly registered by the Sub-Registrar of Assurances on 15-4-2008 and has been returned back to the appellant?

3 The facts in brief, are that the appellant purchased the right, title and interest in all the piece and parcels of vacant land bearing Survey Nos. 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 (part) of Village Odhav and Survey Nos. 74, 75/1, 75/2, 79/1, 79/2 and 80 of Village Nikol, Taluka City, District Ahmedabad, in Court Auction (Debt Recovery Tribunal). The sale certificate was also issued to the appellant on 29-11-2004. The appellant made payment of full consideration of Rs. 4.51 crore. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as 'the D.R.T. '), has by its letter 23-3-2005 conveyed the Sub-Registrar of Assurances about confirmation of such sale.

4. On 28-2-2008, the appellant made an application under Sec. 31 of the Bombay before the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Ahmedabad for determining the fair market value of the land in question. In pursuance of the application of the appellant, the Deputy Collector, respondent No. 2 issued certificate on 1-3-2008, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-J with original writ petition, which shows that the Deputy Collector, respondent No. 2 has determined market value at Rs. 5.49 crore and evaluated stamp duty payable by the appellant at Rs. 26,90,300/-. Thus, though the appellant has paid Rs. 4.51 crore as value of the land in question in auction before the D.R.T., considering the valuation of the property at Rs. 5.49 crore by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, stamp duty was paid on such valuation.

5. After receiving the certificate of the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation Cell, the Debt Recovery Tribunal directed the Recovery Inspector to execute the sale-deed in favour of the appellant by order dated 11-4-2008. Accordingly, the sale-deed was executed on 15-4-2008 and registered on the same day bearing registration No. 5033 by paying stamp duty of Rs.26,90,300/-. The sale-deed was mentioned as "deed of sale". The sale-deed or the deed of sale was executed on 15-4-2008.

6. Thereafter, the appellant got the plan approved from the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, (hereinafter referred to as "the A.U.D.A.") and sold some plots for industrial purposes to more than 600 buyers and executed sale-deeds, which were registered and industries are being run on the land sold by the appellant to the various purchasers.

7. The appellant received the show-cause notice dated 2/11-4-2012 issued by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Ahmedabad, respondent No. 2 hereinunder Sec. 39(1)(b) of the Act, demanding deficit stamp duty and to show-cause as to why penalty should not be levied. In such notice, the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, stated that the document is retained under Sec. 33 of the Act on the ground that the deficit amount of stamp duty is determined on the basis of Auditor Generals report, but copy of such report was not supplied to the appellant while directing to pay the deficit amount of stamp duty being Rs. 3,67,84,590/- after adjusting Rs.26,90,300/- paid by the appellant.

8. Provisions of Sections 33 and 39 of the Act read as under

"Sec. 33. Examination and impounding of instruments :

(1) Subject to the provisions of Sec. 32A, every person having, by law or consent of parties, authority to receive evidence and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police or any other officer, empowered by law to investigate offences un