JUDGMENT :

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Jay Trivedi learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the orders dated 30.05.2015 passed by the respondent no.1 and dated 24.02.2014 by the respondent no.2. The consequential prayer is that the additional stamp duty of Rs.28,94,085/- and interest amount which is Rs.5,79,360/- be refunded.

4. Facts in brief would indicate that the assets of M/s. G.T.C.L. Mobile-cum-Technologies Limited (‘GTCL’ for short) were mortgaged to Dena Bank towards the loan secured by the said company. Since GTCL could not repay the loan to the bank, the properties were put to auction wherein the petitioner offered a bid of Rs.7,21,00,000/- which was accepted by the High Court vide order dated 13.01.2009 passed in Company Application No.619 of 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the Court passed an order directing the bank to cooperate with the applicant company in entering into a sale deed. Accordingly the sale deed was executed on 18.05.2013.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.3 did not accept the stamp duty of Rs.35,33,000/- on the ground that the property would actually be valued at Rs.14,52,63,948/- and therefore the required stamp duty was Rs.71,17,934/-. The petitioner was asked to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.35,84,930/- and therefore the sale deed was impounded under Section 33 of the Stamp Act. The case of the petitioner is that without considering the submissions, the respondent no.2 held that the value of the property should be Rs.13,11,64,600/- requiring to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.28,94,065/- with penalty of Rs.250/- which the petitioner ultimately paid along with interest.

6. Mr.Asthavadi learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the property was purchased in a public auction as settled by the decision of this Court by following the decision of the Supreme Court in case of V N Devadoss V. Chief Revenue Control Officer-CUM-INS reported in 2009 (7) SCC 438, it was open for the authorities to ask for stamp duty at the additional/enhanced rate.

7. Mr.Jay Trivedi learned AGP would vehemently oppose the petition and submit by reading the order passed by this Court in Company Application No.619 of 2008, that though it is termed as a public auction, 23 bidders were informed and it was only the petitioner who showed interest and participated in the inter-se bidding offering Rs.7.50 crores. Obviously therefore this was not the true reflection of the value of the property in question. He would also fall back upon the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the authorities and bring it to the notice of the Court that in light of the provisions of Section 2(la) which defines the term market value, it is clear that ‘market value’ in relation to any property means the price which such property would have fetched if sold in open market on the date of execution of the sale deed. He would emphasise on the word ‘execution’. He would submit that though the property in question was purchased in the year 2009, the sale deed was only executed in the year 2013 i.e. 18.05.2013. No inspection for waiting for the sale deed to be registered for the period of four years is forthcoming and therefore market value of the property has to be taken in consonance with the differing Jantri rate on the date of execution of the sale deed.

8. In support of his submission, Mr.Trivedi would rely on a decision of a coordinate bench of this Court in case of Bajaj Col Chem v. Deputy Superintendent of Stamp and Anr. reported in 2011 (1) G.L.H. 243. Para 6 of the judgment would be pressed into service where the Court negated the contention of the advocate for the petitioner holding that there is a difference between two prices in respect of one