- (1.) IN execution of a decree, the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereafter the Tribunal) put up a piece and parcel of land measuring 1. 34 acre more or less together with buildings, structures, plants and machineries, fittings and fixtures (being a cold storage situate at Police Station Raina, Mouza-Maskhanda, District-Burdwan comprised in J. L. No. 3, Khatian No. 88, 585,589, Plot no. 177) (hereafter the said property) for public auction. The petitioner was adjudged the highest bidder. It deposited Rs. 40 lakhs with the Tribunal being the consideration amount. A sale certificate was duly issued by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner. By an order dated 20. 12. 05, the Receiver appointed by the Tribunal was directed to execute a formal deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, deed was executed on 25. 1. 06 and the same was presented for registration before the additional Registrar of Assurances, III at Kolkata. It is claimed by the petitioner that although the deed was provisionally registered and stamp duty amounting to rs. 44,080/- had been deposited on the said sum of Rs. 40 lakhs, the Additional registrar on the plea that the said property had been undervalued had called upon the petitioner to pay stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 3 crores (approx. ). The petitioner has challenged this computation on the ground that the same is unreasonable, incorrect, bad and arbitrary.
(2.) ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the petitioner, since the said property had been purchased by the petitioner in public auction and the said property had been valued by a valuer appointed by the Tribunal, there is no question of the petitioner defrauding the Government of revenue by making payment of less amount of stamp duty. Provisions contained in Entry 18 of the Schedule to the stamp Act as well as several authorities (AIR 2001 Cal 76 : Nitya Hari Kundu vs. State of West Bengal and AIR 2006 A. P. 383 : M/s. Tungabhadra Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. District Registrar and Collector) have been relied on in support of such contention.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, has contended that entry 18 of the Schedule to the Stamp Act would not be applicable in the present case but that Entry 23 thereof would be applicable and there being just and reasonable cause for the Registrar not to accept the stamp duty paid by the petitioner, assessment of market value of the said property at Rs. 3,25,95,690/ had duly been made upon physical enquiry on 17. 2. 2006 in the presence of the petitioner. He also contended by relying on the decision reported in AIR 1991 mad 82 : R. Thiagasundaram vs. The State of Tamil Nadu that the Registrar is not bound by the valuation made by the valuer appointed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.;