Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 715
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.
M/s. Ucal Machine Tools Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, M. Sivaramakrishnan Chennai - Petitioner
Versus
Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), District Collector Office, Rajaji Salai, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.Nos.27379 of 2007 & 7422 of 2018 & WMP No. 9223 of 2018
Decided On : 11-04-2019
For the Petitioner:Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel for Preethi Mohan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:P.P. Purushothaman, Government Advocate.
Headnote:
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 47-A(1), (3), (5), (6), (10) and 19-B(4) - Sale deed - Agreement of sale – Claim deficit stamp duty – Challenged - Petitioner entered into an agreement of sale dated with their vendor to acquire commercial unit measuring 1235.45 sq.ft. of land which is 0.955% of undivided share of total extent of land measuring 1,29,367 sq.ft - Vendor companies intended to develop entire common land and as per the development agreement, the vendor of the petitioner entitled to 47.5% of super built up area in above common land in consideration of vendor making available Schedule B land of said agreement for the development project - Agreement entered between the parties, petitioner cannot become the owner of the commercial unit unless they take a conveyance thereof in pursuance of agreement of sale entered into either by a separate sale deed or by a Composite Deed of Conveyance covering the undivided share of land - Petitioner filed their objection on and also requested for issuing a copy of the order made under Section 47A of Stamp Act, which was not at all served on petitioner at any point of time –Held, learned single Judge has noticed that in several cases the original authority passes an order within a short period immediately after registration, while in some other cases, proceedings are kept open before original authority for more than five to six years - Court do not think that such contention is legally sustainable for simple reason that the writ proceedings blocking realisation of revenue in respect of the instruments covered under Section 47A and 19-B of Indian Stamp Act, 1989, would also fall within scope and ambit of the term "pending cases" referred to in said G.O. and therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition will not be construed as case either blocking the revenue or determining market value in respect of subject matter instrument - W.P.No. was earlier taken up for hearing - Court issued an interim direction permitting petitioner to deposit a sum before second respondent on or before, also by observing that if any such deposit was made, same shall be construed as one made under Samadhan Scheme introduced in G.O.Ms.No. however without prejudice to contentions of either parties in the writ petition - W.P.No. is allowed - Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining to the notice issued by the first respondent herein in Form I dated Nil/12/2000 claiming a stamp duty of Rs.24,87,679/- and the consequential recovery notice dated 13.06.2007 in C.Pa.No.A2/163/2000 issued by the second respondent and for recovery of alleged deficit stamp duty of Rs.24,87,682/- with interest and quash the same and also consequently direct the respondents to return the sale deed dated 19.08.1998 registered as Document No.1252 of 1999 in the office of the third respondent.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents herein to allow the petitioner to take advantage of the 'Samadhan Scheme' implemented by the Government of Tamil Nadu under G.O.Ms.No.189 of 2017, issued by the Commercial Taxes and Registration Department and allow the remission of 1/3rd of the additional stamp duty demanded.
1. W.P.No.27379 of 2007 is filed challenging the demand notice of the first respondent claiming the deficit stamp duty of Rs.24,84,679/- and the recovery notice dated 13.06.2007 issued by the second respondent for recovering the above said sum. Consequently, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent to return the sale deed dated 19.08.1998 registered as Document No.1252 of 1999 at the office of the third respondent.
2. W.P.No.7422 of 2018 is filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to take advantage of the Samadhan Scheme implemented by the Government of Tamilnadu under G.O.Ms.No.189 of 2017 and allow the remission of 1/3rd of the additional stamp duty demanded.
3. The petitioner in both these writ petitions is one and the same.
4. The case of the petitioner, in short, in both the writ petitions is as follows:
(a) The petitioner entered into an agreement of sale dated 26.02.1998 with their vendor to acquire the commercial unit measuring 1235.45 sq.ft. of land which is 0.955% of undivided share of the total extent of land measuring 1,29,367 sq.ft. The vendor companies intended to develop the entire common land and as per the development agreement, the vendor of the petitioner entitled to 47.5% of super built up area in the above common land in consideration of the vendor making available Schedule B land of the said agreement for the development project. In pursuant to the sale agreement entered by the petitioner with their vendor, a sale deed dated 19.08.1998 was entered into and registered as Document No.1252 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Triplicane, Chennai. In view of the terms of the agreement entered between the parties, the petitioner cannot become the owner of the commercial unit unless they take a conveyance thereof in pursuance of the agreement of sale entered into either by a separate sale deed or by a Composite Deed of Conveyance covering the undivided share of land. However, the sale deed entered between the parties on 19.08.1998 is not a Composite Deed of Conveyance conveying the undivided share in the common land and the title and ownership of the super built up area. On the other hand, the said sale deed was in respect of undivided share of land alone. While such being the factual position, the Registering Authorities adopted the valuation of the property by including the value of the super built up commercial unit also and consequently issued a notice in Form-I dated Nil/12/2000 claiming a deficit stamp duty of Rs.24,87,679/-. The petitioner filed their objection on 08.03.2001 and also requested for issuing a copy of the order made under Section 47A of the Stamp Act, which was not at all served on the petitioner at any point of time. However, without furnishing such copy, the District Revenue Officer issued a recovery notice dated 13.06.2007 to recover the alleged deficit stamp duty of Rs.24,87,682/.
