THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23185 of 2008 O R D E R: The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the ﬁrst respondent had passed the impugned order dated 07-10-1999 demanding an amount of Rs.1,74,510/- to be payable by each of the petitioners towards deﬁcit stamp duty and fee in respect of document No.1498/99 registered in the oﬃce of the ﬁrst respondent without putting them on notice and without an enquiry in this regard. Petitioners, two in number, along with two others purchased an extent of Ac.1.08 gts. of land each in Sy.No.1181/A of Cheriyal Village and Mandal, Warangal District under two registered sale deeds dated 18-01-1991 and 08-02-1991 from Rachakonda Saimallu S/o.Mallaiah. Subsequently, they formed themselves into a partnership ﬁrm and commenced rice-milling business, which was constructed by them and said to have been run for a period of six years. Thereafter, diﬀerences arose between the partners and a deed of dissolution of partnership was executed on 08-12-1998, which was registered as document No.1497/98 in the oﬃce of the ﬁrst respondent. Document No.1498/98 was executed by Sri B.Narsaiah and Smt B.Sujatha relinquishing their rights in property in Sy.No.1181/A to an extent of Ac.2.16 gts. Petitioners claim to have paid the stamp duty valued in accordance with the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Thereafter, the impugned notice was issued on 07-10- 1999 demanding the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1,74,510/- each towards deﬁcit stamp duty and fee payable under document No.1498/98 in the oﬃce of the first respondent. Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, would place reliance on Sections 41-A and 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and to the rules made thereunder i.e. Andhra Pradesh Stamp (Inspection of Properties) Rules, 1998, notiﬁed in G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 08-01-1999 and to the Andhra Pradesh Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1975, notiﬁed in G.O.Ms.No.1031 dated 31-07-1975. Both Sections 41-A and 47-A requires the Collector to put the person concerned on notice before determining the amount of duty and penalty due from him and calling upon him to make payment of the said amount. Similarly, under Rule 4-A of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp (Inspection of Properties) Rules, 1998, if the authorized oﬃcer detects any deﬁcit duty payable in respect of any instrument due to wrong assessment, with regards either the value or the duty payable by the Registering Oﬃcer, he shall deal with such cases under Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Similarly, under Andhra Pradesh Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1975, on receipt of a reference under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A, the Collector shall issue a notice in Form No.II to every person by whom or in whose favour the instrument has been executed calling upon him to submit his representation thereto. It is not in dispute that the order impugned was passed without putting the petitioners’ on notice and without giving them an opportunity to make their representation thereto. The order of the ﬁrst respondent dated 07-10-1999 must, therefore, be quashed. Needless to state that this order shall not preclude the respondents herein from taking action against the petitioners in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:10-09-2008 usd