- (1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 21.1.1999 passed by the first respondent and the demand notice dated 8.2.1999 issued by the second respondent as arbitrary and illegal.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that himself and four others entered into partnership in the name and style of "Sri Ganesh Gayathree Gruha Nirman" to carry on the business of real estate. The petitioner got 50 per cent share in the said firm and has contributed his house site admeasuring 843 square yards situated in Kakinada Municipality in T.S.No.17, towards his share in the firm, and a partnership deed, dated 29.7.1995, to that effect was executed, and registered. However, the second respondent issued a demand notice dated 5.8.1996 to the petitioner demanding him to pay the stamp duty to a tune of Rs.81,822.50 construing the said partnership deed as sale deed and also fixing the value of the site at Rs.6,81,650/-. Pursuant to that the petitioner filed objections dated 11.9.1996 and thereupon, the second respondent passed an order dated 26.9.1996 confirming the demand notice. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent, and though the first respondent observed that the Partnership Deed is not a sale deed, but held that the property mentioned in the partnership deed to the extent of value of the share of the petitioner amounting to Rs.3,35,000/- is the share of the petitioner, but the remaining sum of Rs.3,39,400/- has to be construed as a gift given by the petitioner to the firm, and liable for stamp duty under Article 29 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Pursuant to the order of the first respondent, the second respondent issued a notice dated 8.2.1999 demanding the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty. Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the value of the property to an extent of Rs.3,35,000/- has to be construed as the share of the petitioner and the remaining value of Rs.3,39,400/- as a gift made by the petitioner to the firm and as such liable for stamp duty, and thus there is no illegality in the action of the respondents.;