In present petition, the petitioner has prayed for below mentioned relief:- “21(B) Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order to quash and set aside the communication dated 3.10.2011 issued by the respondent authority whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit deficit amount of stamp duty of Rs.60,040/- with interest and further direct the respondent authority to accept the deficit amount of stamp duty without interest and to release the document in question immediately;”
1.1 The petitioner has also prayed for below mentioned relief vide amendment dated 6.3.2012:-
“21(BB) Be pleased to hold that the order dated 26th April, 2011 issued by Revenue Department, State of Gujarat is not in consonance with the order dated 8.8.2008 passed in Special Civil Application No.10177 of 2008 and the same may kindly be declare illegal and against the law as much as the same is not including the matters decided at the level of Deputy Collector i.e. first authority prior to 15.5.2007.”
2. So as to support and justify the request, the petitioner has stated below mentioned facts:-
The petitioner has claimed that one property situate at Ward No.2/10, House No.160/1, City Survey No.758 paiki admeasuring 853.67 sq. mtrs. at village Khambhalia, District : Jamnagar was gifted to the petitioner by her father through a Gift-Deed dated 26.7.2001.
The petitioner has also claimed and asserted that the said deed was duly presented for registration and on the basis of the valuation made by the petitioner, necessary and appropriate stamp duty was paid.
It is claimed that the said deed has been pending for registration with the office of Sub-Registrar since 2001. The document has been examined and scrutinized and the authority appears to have come to tentative conclusion that appropriate stamp duty would be at Rs.92,680/- and the petitioner was required to pay deficient stamp duty in the sum of Rs.78,540/-.
The office of the competent authority issued necessary intimation to the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty, however, the petitioner failed to do so and that therefore, a show-cause notice dated 31.1.2002 under Section 32(a) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] was issued.
It is claimed that upon receipt of the intimation, the petitioner submitted her reply dated 11.2.2002.
After considering the reply, the competent authority determined the market value of the property in question at Rs.6,34,900/- and determined the requisite stamp duty at Rs.74,750/-.
Thereafter, the authorities passed order dated 15.2.2002 which was forwarded to the petitioner.
The petitioner felt aggrieved by the said order and therefore, she preferred revision application.
Subsequently, order dated 17.11.2009 came to be passed whereby the order of the first adjudicating authority i.e. Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, Jamnagar came to be confirmed.
In this background, the petitioner has claimed that the petitioner has approached the respondent authority showing her willingness to deposit the deficient stamp duty, however, the respondent authority did not accept the same.
The petitioner has claimed that in view of her request, certain correspondence has been exchanged between the office of Dy. Collector and the Superintendent of Stamps (Legal Branch), Gandhinagar and in the said process, intervening time is consumed. The petitioner has claimed that subsequently, she received communication dated 3.10.2011 from the office of Dy. Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation whereby the petitioner has been informed to pay the amount in question with interest and that the petitioner does not fulfill the condition mentioned in the GR dated 26.4.2011. On the ground that the petitioner was not supplied a copy of the said GR dated 26.4.2011, the petitioner has sought to challenge the said communication. It is also alleged that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing and that therefore, the impugned communication dated 3.10.2011 is in violation of principles of natural justice.
2.1 In support of her case, the petitioner has tried to rely on a decision in case of Vinodbhai Balashankar Raval v. Deputy Collector & Ors. [2008 (3) GLH 365] and claimed that since the document in question is pending for registration prior to 15.7.2005, the petitioner should be allowed the benefit of the said decision.
The petitioner has, in the aforesaid background, brought under challenge the order dated 3.10.2011 whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the deficit stamp duty in the sum of Rs.60,040/- with interest, however, in effect, the order under challenge is the order dated 17.11.2009. The petitioner has also prayed that the competent authority may be directed to accept the deficit amount of stamp duty without interest and to release the document in question.
3. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate, has appeared for the petitioner and reiterated the aforesaid factual background. Relying on the above noted decision in case of Vinodbhai Balashankar Raval (supra), Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the document in question is covered by the said decision and that therefore, benefit of the said decision may be made available to the petitioner herein.
He also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount of deficit stamp duty, however, the impugned direction to pay interest may be set aside.
4. Mr. Yagnik, learned AGP, has opposed the petition by filing reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit, the respondent authority, submitted that:-
“5. The petitioner has filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the communication dated 03.10.2011 issued by the respondents in which the petitioner has been directed to deposit deficit stamp duty of Rs.60,040/- along with interest. By way of captioned petition the petitioner has stated that the respondent authorities are not entitled to claim the interest over the deficit amount which is totally paid and against the law.
6. It is further submitted that the respondent issue show cause notice dated 31.01.2002 under section 32-A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 by way of the said notice the deficit stamp duty calculate on the market value which comes to Rs.6,34,900 and hence there were deficit stamp duty of Rs.74,750 + penalty Rs. 250 comes to in total of Rs.75,000. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. The appeal preferred by the petitioner have been rejected by way of order dated 17.11.2009. Now the petitioner is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay deficit stamp duty without any interest upon for the said purpose. Petitioner made an application by way of letter dated 17.08.2001 to the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation to pay remaining Rs.60,040/-.”
4.1 In background of aforesaid statement by the respondent authority, Mr. Yagnik, learned AGP, has submitted that the request made by the petitioner is not sustainable and it is contrary to the provisions under the Act and overlooks the order of adjudicating authority.
5. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the competent authority passed order dated 15.2.2002 whereby the authority determined the extent of deficit stamp duty. According to the order dated 15.2.2002, the petitioner is obliged to pay stamp duty at the rate of Rs.88,890/-. Since the petitioner had paid stamp duty at the rate of Rs.14,140/-, the competent authority by the very same order, imposed stamp duty at Rs.74,750/- with fine of Rs.250/-. Accordingly, by the said order, the competent authority directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards stamp duty.
5.1 Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has no objection to pay the amount as determined under order dated 15.2.2002. The petitioner has claimed that after the aforesaid order was passed, certain amount was paid by the petitioner and according to the petitioner, now, the amount which remains outstanding is to the tune of Rs.60,040/- excluding interest.
However, it is a matter of fact that until now, the petitioner has not deposited the amount in question.
Now, by way of present petition, the petitioner prays that direction to pay interest may be set aside and the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the principal amount towards deficit stamp duty which is determined by the authority.
5.2 In this background, the only issue which requires consideration is that whether the petitioner is justified in requesting that the amount demanded towards interest deserves to be and can be dispensed with.
It is pertinent to mentioned that since it is clearly stipulated and declared that the petitioner does not dispute the decision and quantification of amount so far as the principal amount is concerned and that part of the order is not challenged and only dispute and challenge is against direction to pay interest. In this view of the matter and only because of such stipulation, the said aspects are not adverted and dealt with.
5.3 It is a matter of fact that appropriate stamp duty on the document in question was supposed to be paid by the petitioner when the Gift-Deed was executed and presented for registration in 2001.
This translates into the fact that since last 11 years, the petitioner has not paid the requisite stamp duty.
Instead, the petitioner entered into repeated requests and correspondence with the authority and in the intervening period, the petitioner did not take any action to challenge the order in question.
The imposition of interest in the event of default in making the payment, is statutory requirement which cannot be dispensed with.
Otherwise also, any justiciable reason to set aside the direction qua interest has not been made out.
6. So far as the reference made by the petitioner to the decision in question in case of Vinodbhai Balashankar Raval (supra) is concerned, the fact and circumstances in light of which the said decision was rendered by the Court are altogether different and not applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case.
6.1 Besides this, after passage of almost 10 years, the petitioner has come forward with present petition with a request that direction to pay interest for the intervening period may be dispensed with.
In this context, it is necessary to take into account the provisions of Section 46 of the Act and Rule 30-A, which read thus:-
“46. Recovery of duties, penalties and interest. - (1) Where any person required to pay and amount of duty, penalty or other sums under this Act does not pay within the time prescribed for its payment he shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twenty four per cent, per annum on such amount or on any less amount thereof for the period for which such amount remains unpaid.
(2) All duties, penalties, interest and other sums required to be paid under this Act may be recovered by the Collector by distress and sale of the movable or immovable property of the person from whom the same are due, or as an arrears of land revenue.
Rule 30A Determination of interest :-
Where a person to whom any amount of duty, penalty or other sum required to pay under the Act fails to pay such amount within ninety days from the date of the receipt of the order who according to the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 46 shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of [Fifteen percent] per annum on such amount or on any less amount thereof for the period for which such amount remains unpaid.”
6.2 A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions make it clear that the requirement to pay interest in the event of default and delay in making payment of deficient stamp duty or requisite stamp duty is a statutory obligation and the Court cannot pass any direction to render the said requirement ineffective or nugatory. Any order or direction to dispense with the said requirement or to dilute it cannot be passed by the Court. Court cannot dispense with statutory obligation.
Therefore, the petition does not deserve to be entertained and is accordingly rejected.
It is once again clarified that other aspects are not adverted and dealt with and decided only because any dispute is not raised and challenge in the petition is restricted only qua interest component.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc