Stamp duty is to be paid on the market value of the property, and in the case of public auctions, the price obtainable in a transparent manner should be considered for stamp duty.

JAISHREE THAKUR, J.

1. The petitioner by way of instant writ petition seeks quashing of the letter dated 12.4.2021 (Annexure P/5) and order dated 6.10.2021 (Annexure P-15), vide which the petitioner has been directed to pay difference of Rs.51,95,243/- on account of deficiency in stamp duty.

2. The facts as enumerated in the writ petition are that on 14.8.2015, a company known as M/s Montari Industries Ltd. was ordered to be wound up by this High Court in Company Petition No. 83 of 2010 and an Official Liquidator was appointed. Thereafter, for sale of the movable and immovable properties of the said company i.e. land, building, machinery etc., a sale notice was published in the Indian Express dated 28.12.2016 (P-1). The petitioner was a successful bidder as it had given the highest bid for the properties. Thereafter, Official Liquidator filed a Company Application No. 35 of 2017 in the High Court seeking confirmation of sale of movable and immovable properties in favour of the petitioner being the highest bidder, which was allowed, vide order dated 2.6.2017 (P-2). The petitioner received letter dated 9.2.2021 (P-3) from the Official Liquidator to complete the formalities as per the requirement of the revenue authorities and inform them of the schedule for execution of the sale deed. Consequently, necessary papers for execution of sale deed were presented to Sub-Registrar Balachaur and the sale deed was executed on 12.4.2021 (P-4) and stamp duty of Rs.33,13,200/- was paid on 7.4.2021 by the petitioner in respect of sale consideration of Rs.5,52,20,000/- for land and the building in terms of the price fixed and approved by this Court. However, the Sub-Registrar, Balachaur—respondent No.3 vide communication dated 12.4.2021 (P-5) itself referred the matter to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, SAS Nagar, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (for short “the Act”), depicting deficiency of the stamp duty and registration fee committed in execution of the sale deed.

3. It is alleged that since nothing was heard from the respondents for more than three months after the matter was referred by respondent No. 3 to respondent No.1, the petitioner sent a letter dated 12.7.2021 (P-6) to respondent No.1 raising issue of lack of jurisdiction on account of non-applicability of Section 47-A of the Act in the present case. Thereafter various letters were exchanged/addressed but the matter was not decided. Ultimately on 6.10.2021, order was passed by respondent No.1 vide which action of invoking Section 47-A of the Act has been held to be justified and additional demand of Rs.51,95,243/- on account of deficiency in stamp duty has been raised, which is being impugned in the instant writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner was the successful bidders in the court auction done through the Official Liquidator and the Official Liquidator had executed the sale deed in question in favour of the petitioner and that too after seeking permission from the Company Court. Therefore, Section 47-A of the Act cannot be invoked in case of auction sales and the same is applicable to the private sales only. In these circumstances, the sole question that was required to be addressed by respondents was whether in respect of sale of property through court auction, could there be a case of undervaluation of property or deficiency in payment of stamp duty. However, that issue was not addressed, while passing the impugned order. Hence, the instant writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would argue that value of the property set forth in the sale deed being less than minimum value, as determined in accordance with rules under the Act, the reference to the Collector was justified and the Collector rightly determined the value on the date of registration. Counsel would rely upon judgments as rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. M/s Khandaka Jain Jewellers 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 91