Procedural compliance under Section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act suffices for levy of deficit stamp duty; remedy through appeal is not barred by concurrent writ proceedings.

ORDER:

N.Anand Venkatesh, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 29.2.2024 and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to confirm the levy of stamp duty and the registration charges that were originally paid towards the sale agreement dated 16.12.2020 registered as doc.No.9893 of 2020 on the file of the third respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows :

(i) A sale agreement dated 16.12.2020 came to be executed by the petitioner in favour of one Mr.K.Rakesh Kumar with respect to certain properties belonging to the petitioner company. As per the said sale agreement, the total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.29.49 Crores. A sum of Rs.10 lakhs was payable towards advance. The balance amount was payable at various stages towards discharging the liability of the petitioner company owed to a financial institution.

(ii) For this purpose, the agreement holder was given the right of collecting the original title documents from the financial institution on settling the dues. That apart, the agreement holder was permitted to enter into the properties and take control of the same for carrying out the preparatory process and to make the properties marketable to sell them to prospective buyers. The agreement holder was also given the right of getting necessary approvals and clearance from the competent authority. This document was treated to be a sale agreement and it was registered on payment of necessary stamp duty under Article 5(j) of the Indian STAMP ACT , 1899. It was registered as doc.No.9893 of 2020 on the file of the third respondent.

(iii) The above document was scrutinized by the departmental audit and they came to the conclusion that the document has to be treated as an instrument comprising of two distinct matters viz. (i) agreement of sale by delivery of possession; and (ii) power for consideration coupled with interest. Accordingly, the audit came to the further conclusion that there has been a short levy towards both the stamp duty as well as the registration fee, totaling a sum of Rs.1,76,88,860/-. Pursuant to that, the second respondent initiated proceedings under Section 33A of the Indian STAMP ACT and through the impugned proceedings dated 29.2.2024, directed the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.1,17,99,180/-.

(iv) The third respondent independently issued a show cause notice dated 24.7.2023 under Section 80A of the REGISTRATION ACT towards levy of the deficit registration fee. After inquiry, a certificate was issued under Section 80A of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 and the petitioner was directed to pay the deficit registration fee of Rs.58,89,680/-. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent on 09.12.2023 and the same is still pending.

(v) Incidentally, the petitioner had filed an appeal, against the order dated 29.2.2024 passed by the second respondent levying the deficit stamp duty, before the first respondent on 30.4.2024 under Sub-Section (3) of Section 33A of the Indian STAMP ACT . After filing such appeal, the above writ petition came to be filed before this Court on 10.7.2024 challenging the very same order dated 29.2.2024 passed by the second respondent.

4. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit and justified the levy of deficit stamp duty by the second respondent. That apart, the third respondent has also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner already filed an appeal before the first respondent. According to him, without waiting for the outcome of the appeal, the above writ petition has been filed before this Court. Hence, the third respondent sought for dismissal of this writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is a gross procedural irregularity on