JUDGMENT :

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Gujarat Stamp Act (hereafter be referred to as “the Act”) seeking following reliefs:-

(a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby be pleased to quash and set aside the notice No.Stamp / 23 / 319 dated 03.02.2024 issued by the respondent authority and further be pleased to hold and declare that the action of the respondent authority in levying of the stamp duties of the earlier transactions on the petitioner is in total violation of provisions of section 32(A) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958.

(b) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent authorities to only levy stamp duty to the extent of the present transaction by which the subject land was transferred in favour of the present petitioner.

(c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the notice No.Stamp / 23 / 319 dated 03.02.2024 issued by the respondent authority under section 39(1)(b) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to register the document to be presented by the petitioner by levying appropriate stamp duty in accordance with the application of the petitioner.

(d) Grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. The facts of the present case are that the land bearing survey No. 891/paiki and 895/paiki, Industrial Plot No.1B, Taluka: Vapi, District: Valsad admeasuring 7100 square meters came to be allotted to M/s. Sahil Board Mills and thereafter a lease deed came to be executed. Thereafter, the land was transferred from M/s.Sahil Boards Mills to M/s.N. R. Agrawal vide order dated 30.10.2010 passed by GIDC and the petitioner executed a deed of assignment cum conveyance.

2.1 The petitioner was in need of fund for the purpose of business and therefore he approached the bank for mortgaging the land and thereafter mortgage deed was stamped before the Sub Registrar and applicable stamp was paid and the same was registered.

2.2 That in the year 2023, the petitioner approached the bank for another loan on the same land. The Sub Registrar, Stamp Duty, Valsad informed the petitioner that the mortgage cannot be registered as the stamp duty is not paid.

2.3 That the petitioner addressed a letter dated 23.10.2023 to the Deputy Stamp Collector, Valsad seeking clarification qua unpaid stamp duty, if any, which was to be paid. The respondent – authority issued notice and informed the petitioner that an amount of Rs.16,85,286/- was to be paid as deficit stamp duty.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents – authorities. Perused the material placed on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has also submitted that the notice issued by the respondent – authority for recovery of deficit stamp duty is illegal, unjust and arbitrary and against the principles of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the authorities below have failed to consider the fact that as per Section 32(A) which stipulates the period of six years is granted for issuing statutory notice for recovery of deficit stamp duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the notice is for recovery of stamp duty levied for transaction of the year 1969 and 1996 and the notice was issued on 03.02.2024 which does not fall within the statutory period of six years and therefore the respondents have committed an error in ignoring Section 32(A) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the settled principles of law the st