The reference under Section 47A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 requires evidence of wilful undervaluation with fraudulent intention to evade stamp duty.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the respondent leading to the impugned notices being Form 1 Notice dated 22.08.2016 and Final Notice dated nil in T.P.No.106/16/A4 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to release the Transfer Deed registered as Document No.4499 of 2016 on 27.06.2016.)

This Writ Petition has been filed against the Form I Notice dated 22.08.2016 issued under Section 47A (1) & (3) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 and the Final Notice dated nil in T.P.No.106/16/A4) issued by the 1st respondent herein.

2. The brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint are as follows :

i) The petitioner namely Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited had purchased a land an extent of 100 acres in R.S.Nos.354/1 pt and 1556-B pt in Athipattu Village and Vallur Village in Ennore Area near Chennai from the Government of India, Represented by Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Salt Division, for a total sale consideration of Rs.73,37,90,306/-. The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.73,24,006/- per acre i.e. Rs.73,24,00,600/- for 100 acres, arrived on base value of Rs.36,69,418/- per acre on 09.04.2010 with 20% annual increase to PAO, DIPP, New Delhi by means of a cheque subject to differential amount if any as per calculation of value of lands as mentioned in DIPP Order No.04011/9/2010 dated 03.01.2014. As directed by the Government, the petitioner had paid the sale consideration of Rs.73,37,90,306/- by way of two cheques one bearing number 900353 dated 15.01.2014 for Rs.73,24,00,600/- and the differential provisional value of Rs.13,89,706/- for the period from 18.01.2014 to 21.01.2014 was paid through cheque bearing number 900359 dated 21.01.2014.

ii) Pursuant to the payment of sale consideration, the petitioner was put in possession of the said land on 21.01.2014, and thereafter, a transfer deed dated 24.06.2016 was executed by the Government of India in respect of the above land situated at Athipattu and Vallur Village in favour of the petitioner and the same was registered as Document No.4499 of 2016 dated 27.06.2016. At the time of execution of the sale deed, the petitioner had paid the entire stamp duty and registration charges for the actual sale consideration paid to the Government. However, instead of releasing the sale deed, the 2nd respondent, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to present its case, had made a reference under Section 47A to the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) to ascertain the actual stamp duty payable by the petitioner. The petitioner was further served with a copy of Form-I Notice dated 22.08.2016 from the 1st respondent, demanding a sum of Rs.10,12,34,465/- towards alleged difference in stamp duty. Hence, the impugned notices are sought to be quashed on the ground that the reference cannot be made under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, without any evidence to show lack of bonafides on the part of the parties to the document.

3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and raised an objection to the above averments stating that the value of the land as per guideline registers is at Rs.500/- per sq.ft, but the value of the land put forth in the document is at Rs.168.30/- per sq.ft. Hence, they issued Form-I Notice under Section 47A (1) & (3) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, calling for the explanation from the petitioner. Since the explanation given by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the 1st respondent sent an another notice in the same number fixing the hearing on 24.04.2017. The petitioner in their letter dated 08.05.2017 had requested the 1st respondent to advice the 2nd respondent to release the document by considering their earlier explanation given on 28.04.2017.

4. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the impugned notices are only show