IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD W.P. NO.1206 OF 2019 [GM-ST/RN] BETWEEN:
1 MRS. K. USHA VISHWANATH W/O. MR. K. VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2 MR. K.P. SIDDHARTH S/O. MR. K. VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT ‘MITHILA’, NO.21/28, CRAIG PARK LAYOUT M.G. ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 ... PETITIONERS (By Sri. K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION BENGALURU – 560 027 2 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS SHIVAJINAGAR REGISTRATION DISTRICT 3RD FLOOR, ‘TRIUMPH TOWERS’, NO.48, CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE – 560 001 3 THE SUB-REGISTRAR SHIVAJINAGAR 3RD FLOOR, ‘TRIUMPH TOWERS’, NO.48, CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE – 560 001 4 VALDEL XTENT OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., [A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956] REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ‘THE FALCON HOUSE’, NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 5 PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LTD., [A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956] REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ‘THE FALCON HOUSE’, NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt. H.C. KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3; NOTICE TO R4 & R5 DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 11.01.2019) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7.1.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN STP [APPEAL] NO.16/2018-19 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ONLY IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO REJECTING THE STAY APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The learned Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Sri. K.N. Phanindra, the learned Senior Counsel for the counsel on record for the petitioners, submits that notice to the respondents 4 and 5 be dispensed with. Accordingly, notice to these respondents are dispensed with.
2. This writ petition is filed, calling in question the Order dated 7.1.2019 by the Respondent No.1 in ST[ [Appeal] No.16/2018-19 filed under Section 45A[5] of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Respondent No.1, by the impugned order, has rejected the petitioners’ request for interim stay of the adjudication on payment of deficit stamp duty and registration fee as determined by the Respondent No.2 vide its Order dated 3.9.2018.
3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is totally arbitrary and there is complete lack of application of mind, a necessary concomitant even in quasi judicial process. Further, the impugned order is without opportunity and without considering the contents of the document referred for under valuation under Section 45A of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the petitioners have deposited 50% of the deficit registration fee and stamp duty as required under the relevant Act/Statutes though it was specifically contended that adjudication by the Respondent No.2 is contrary to law. But, the respondents, because of the impugned order, propose to recover the amount adjudicated as deficit stamp duty and registration fee.
4. The learned Government Pleader is not able to controvert that the petitioners have deposited 50% of the adjudicated deficit stamp duty and registration fee and that, with the rejection of the petitioners’ application vide the impugned order, the respondents could initiate recovery of the amount claimed as deficit stamp duty and registration fee.
5. The Respondent No.1, by the impugned order, which is not supported by any reason, has rejected the application and listed the appeal for hearing on main appeal on 11.2.2019. If proceedings, because the interim application is rejected by the impugned order, are initiated for recovery of deficit stamp duty and registration fee, the appeal proceedings would be rendered redundant. In view of the manner in which the application is disposed of by the Respondent No.2 and the consequence that would ensue without effective and necessary adjudication in the appeal, this Court is of the considered opinion this petition could be disposed of quashing the impugned order restoring the application filed by the petitioners for interim order to the board of the Respondent No.1 for fresh consideration while observing that no precipitative action should be initiated by the respondents till the time the interim restored application is considered by the Respondent No.1.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE AN/-