Partly allowed

M/S Ambuja Cements Ltd. Unit Maratha Cement Works v. State of Maharashtra Ministry of Revenue and Forests and Others

Bombay HC17 Jul 2013WP/807/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court ordered a quashing of the revenue demand for excess stamp duty and permitted the State to invoke Section 53A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, within six weeks. The petitioner's refund claim, including interest at 8%, was conditioned on a final determination by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.

What did the court decide?

The demand for additional stamp duty was quashed. The petitioner is permitted to retain the paid amount pending adjudication by the CCRA under Section 53A of the Act.

M/S Ambuja Cements Ltd. Unit Maratha… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

wp807.13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 807 OF 2013

¶5

M/s. Ambuja Cements Ltd., A company registered under the Companies Act, through its President & Signing Authority Shri S.K. Thakur, having its registered office at P.O. Ambuja Nagar 362 715, Taluka – Kodinar, District – Junagadh (Gujarat) and its Unit – Maratha Cement Works, at and Post Upparwahi, Tq. Korpana, District – Chandrapur – 442 908 Maharashtra.

¶6

... PETITIONER

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Forests, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶9

The Joint District Registrar-cumThe Collector of Stamps, Administrative Building, First Floor, Chandrapur.

¶10

Sub-Registrar, Tahsil Office Premises, Rajura, Dist. Chandrapur. ... RESPONDENTS

¶11

Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.W. Sambre, GP for the respondents.

¶12

¶13

wp807.13

¶14

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. JULY 17, 2013.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶16

Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally

¶17

with the consent of Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶18

Lease deed executed by the State Government in favour of the petitioner for a duration of 30 years was looked into by the Collector of Stamps at Chandrapur on 30.01.2010 and he adjudicated the value of the document to be Rs.8,58,25,200/-. As per Schedule I, Article 36 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), he then also worked out stamp duty on said document at Rs.25,75,000/-. Accordingly, that stamp duty was paid by the petitioner. About

¶19

two years thereafter, the petitioner received a communication dated 02.03.2012 from the very same officer pointing out that

¶20

¶21

wp807.13

¶22

stamp duty of Rs.43,83,950/- was levied less. This was followed by another communication dated 07.05.2012 in which said officer stated that the stamp duty of Rs.34,79,106/- was levied less. The petitioner made appropriate representation, lodged its protest, also paid the amount as demanded and thereafter has approached this Court.

¶23

Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel, by placing reliance upon the provisions of Section 32 of the Act, submits that the adjudication thereunder being quasi judicial, cannot be opened except in accordance with law. He points out that Section 32A (5) enables the Collector to suo motu conduct enquiry but then the documents on which stamp duty is not adjudicated upon under sub-section (1) Section 32 of the Act, only be scrutinized thereunder. He further points out that Section 53A of the Act enables the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to look into such dispute and in present matter even though remedy is available, recourse to the same has not been taken. He, therefore, argues that the demand as made is, without

¶24

¶25

wp807.13

¶26

jurisdiction and void.

¶27

Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, relies upon the reply affidavit. He points out the events disclosed in paras 4 & 5 to urge that the payment of deficit stamp duty was noticed after a letter received from the Accountant General-II. After noticing this, due opportunity was given to the petitioner, petitioner filed its reply and this deficit stamp duty has been worked out. The petitioner, therefore, ought to have gone to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 53A of the Act and as present petition has been filed directly without taking recourse to that remedy, it is not maintainable.

¶28

The provisions of law, to which our attention has been invited, put seal of finality upon the order of the Collector of Stamps dated 30.01.2010. The said order itself mentions that it is subject to the provisions of Section 53A of the Act. By placing reliance upon this stipulation, the learned Government

¶29

¶30

wp807.13

¶31

Pleader has also contended that adjudication on 30.01.2010 was always provisional. In the light of express language of Section 32A(5) read with Section 53A of the Act, it is clear that this contention cannot be accepted. The said stipulation is by way of abundant precaution and only to put to notice the party paying stamp duty that the determination can be varied in accordance with law under Section 53A of the Act. Section 53A enables the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to correct such errors within a period of six years but for that purpose, the said Authority has to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the party concerned, to examine instrument and thereafter pass necessary orders. Thus, hearing envisaged is by a superior authority and not by the adjudicating authority itself. Here, the correction has been carried out by the adjudicating authority. Law does not empower it to undertake such an exercise. Section 53A of the Act need not have been, therefore, taken recourse to by the petitioner. Respondents could have utilized it to claim the alleged shortfall in stamp duty.

¶32

¶33

wp807.13

¶34

In this situation, we find that the interest of justice can be met with by permitting the respondents to move the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 53A of the Act within a period of six weeks from today. The said authority shall thereafter proceed further in the matter in accordance with the provisions of Section 53A of the Act and take necessary decision about the adequacy of stamp duty as per law, within a further period of three months. The petitioner has already paid the alleged deficit stamp duty under protest and without prejudice to its contentions. We permit the respondents to retain that stamp duty for a period of two months from today. If in the meanwhile, the Reference is received by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority or any proceedings are filed by the respondents before that authority, the said deposit shall be withheld by the respondents till the said authority adjudicates the controversy finally within the stipulated period of three months. If after such adjudication, the petitioner is found to have deposited the excess amount towards stamp duty, such excess amount shall be refunded to it within a further period of two months. If the

¶35

¶36

wp807.13

¶37

amount is not so refunded, the respondents shall pay to the petitioner interest on the excess amount, calculated at 8% per annum from the date on which the amount was deposited till its refund. This direction to refund, with obligation to pay interest, shall also apply in case the provisions of Section 53A of the Act are not invoked by the respondents within a period of two months as stipulated above.

¶38

With petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in above terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

Certified copy expedited.

JUDGE

JUDGE

*GS.

wp807.13 8

M/S Ambuja Cements Ltd. Unit Maratha Cement Works v. State of Maharashtra Ministry of Revenue and Forests and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ambuja Cements Ltd. Unit Maratha Cement Works v. State of Maharashtra Ministry of Revenue and Forests and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janabai D/O Vithoba (Bari) Dudhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Digvijayant S/O Wasudeo Tumdam Vs Union of India Thr. Secty. and Ors.

Vandana Uddhaorao Matankar Vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur Thr. Its Registrar

Sanjay S/O Dinesh Tulshan Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Mineralas and Revenue Dept. and Others

Chandrapur District Gittikhadan Majoor Sahakari Soc. Federation,Thr. Its Chairman Ramnath B.Kalsarp Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Rural Development and Water Conservation

Executive Engineer (Vidc) Lowar Wardha Project Division Vs Annasaheb Mahadeorao Thakre and Others