IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.13368/2011 (GM-ST/RN) C/W WRIT PETITION No.13369/2011 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN:
M/S MYSORE HOUSING CO.PVT. LTD., NO 302, R V APARTMENTS NO. 31, PIPELINE ROAD, 11TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE -03 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI B RAMASWAMY M/S LAKSHMI CEMENTS AND CERAMICS ... PETITIONER IN W.P.No.13368/2011 INDUSTRIES LTD., NO.302, R V APARTMENT NO.31, PIPELINE ROAD, 11TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-03 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI B RAMASWAMY ... PETITIONER IN W.P.No.13369/2011 (BY SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO & SRI SUNIL S RAO, ADVs.) AND:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 01.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY CHITRADURGA DIVISION CHITRADURGA.
3. THE SENIOR DEPUTY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (W,F AND RA) KARNATAKA, INDIAN AUDIT AND ACCOUTNS DEPARTMENT REVENUE AUDIT WING, I FLOOR COFFEE BOARD BUIDLING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE- 01 ... RESPONDENTS (COMMON) (BY SRI S S MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1-R3) THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.01.2011 ISSUED BY THE R2 TO THE PETITIONER COMPANY IN CASE NO.DY.DIRECTOR/MINES & GEOLOGY/ 10-11/5110 AND 10-11/5103, FOUND AT ANN-G AND ANN-F RESPECTIVELY.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner in W.P.No.13368/2011 is assailing the notice dated 27.01.2011 demanding a sum of Rs.1,17,744/- issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner. In W.P.No.13369/2011 the petitioner is assailing a similar notice dated 27.01.2011 demanding a sum of Rs.84,081/- issued by respondent No.2.
2. Since the basis for such demand is similar in both these petitions, the petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
3. For the narration of facts, the case as pleaded in W.P.No.13368/2011 is taken note. The petitioner and the State Government through the department of Mines and Geology have entered into a mining lease for 20 years with effect from 18.01.2003. In respect of the said documents, the petitioner has secured registration of the same and according to the petitioner the stamp duty of Rs.13,200/- was paid on 16.11.2004. Thereafter the petitioner has carried out the mining activity. Though the petitioner has referred to the quantity of material that was excavated and transported during the year 2003-04 which was much lesser than what was permitted under the license. That aspect of the matter relates to the royalty that is payable by the petitioner and therefore the same need not be adverted to in these petitions. In the instant case, the notice impugned dated 27.01.2011 though is issued by the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, Chitradurga calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.1,17,744/-, the same is in view of the fact that the District Registrar, Chitradurga District had addressed a letter to the Assistant Director Mines and Geology dated 25.01.2011 about the objection being raised by the Auditor General and in that light, the amount of Rs.1,17,744/- to be collected from the petitioner. In that light, a perusal of the impugned notice dated 27.01.2011 would indicate that the amount of Rs.1,17,744/- as claimed is in relation to the deficit stamp duty and registration charges relating to the mining lease.
4. If that be the position, the deficit if any was required to be demanded by the District Registrar being the superior Officer of the Sub-Registrar before whom the document was registered. In that regard appropriate proceedings should have been initiated and not in the manner as has been demanded. This is more so due to the fact that if under the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act and the Schedule thereto the stamp duty was required to be paid on the document that was to be registered viz., the mining lease and if the stamp duty which was paid at the time of registration was lesser than the amount which was required to be paid in accordance with law, the appropriate proceedings either suo motu or in view of the objections raised by the Auditor General was to be initiated by the District Registrar by issue of appropriate notice to the petitioner and thereafter an appropriate proceeding was required to be held to determine the deficit stamp duty after providing opportunity. On the other hand in the instant case, without disclosing any material particulars or the provision of law under which the deficit is being sought, the impugned notice dated 27.01.2011 is issued by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Chitradurga. Such demand as made without reference to the provision of law or the procedure as contemplated under the Karnataka Stamp Act would not be justified, if the demand in fact is towards the deficit stamp duty and registration charges as indicated in the notice dated 27.01.2011.
5. Similarly the notice issued in W.P.No.13369/2011 is on following a similar procedure, but the demand in the said impugned notice is for the sum of Rs.84,081/-. Therefore, in the said circumstance, when the notice is not from the Competent Authority viz., the District Registrar and does not indicate the legal basis due to which such demand is made, the same cannot be sustainable. However, keeping in view the fact that the impugned notice was issued with reference to an earlier communication dated 25.01.2011 addressed by the District Registrar to the Assistant Director Mines and Geology, liberty is required to be reserved to the District Registrar to keep in view the objections which have been raised by the Auditor General and if need be, issue appropriate notice to the petitioner, hold the proceedings in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law . All contentions in that regard are left open for consideration.
6. In view of the present order keeping in view the interim order dated 19.04.2011 passed in these petitions and pursuant to the same if the petitioners have deposited the amount as indicated therein before the competent authority, the said amount could be returned by the respondents till a decision in the matter is taken in the manner as indicated above. However, it is made clear that if no further action is initiated by the respondents within a period of two months from the date on which copy is furnished, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner.
In terms of the above, both these petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/bms