Heard Mr.C.Ramakrishna, the learned counsel for Mr.K.Viswanath, appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the notice, dated 18. 1997, issued by the third respondent in Ref.No.I No.20/B1/97, calling upon the petitioner to pay a penalty of 10 times the deficit stamp duty, under Section 40 (1)(b) of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended by The Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 24 of 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and to direct the third respondent to register the sale deed presented, on 23. 1996 and to return the same after the completion of the necessary formalities.

3. One of the main contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the third respondent had imposed the penalty of 10 times the deficit stamp duty, by a letter, dated 18. 1997, without giving the petitioner an opportunity to pay the deficit stamp duty and without adhering to the principles of natural justice. It has also been submitted that the notice, date